Comparison of anterior segment measurements using Sirius Topographer® and Nidek Axial Length-Scan® with assessing repeatability in patients with cataracts

Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements using three different imaging devices

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare central corneal thickness (CCT) values and evaluate the agreement obtained with three different devices in healthy eyes.

METHODS

A total of 120 eyes of 60 healthy individuals (36 men and 24 women) were enrolled in this retrospective study. CCT measurements were performed using an optical biometer (AL-Scan), spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) (Topcon 3D) and ultrasonic pachymetry (UP) (Accupach VI), and the results were compared. Bland-Altman analysis was used to quantify the agreement between methods.

MAIN RESULTS

The mean patient age was 28±5.73years (18-40years). The mean CCT values obtained by AL-Scan, UP, and SD-OCT were 532.4μm±29.7, 549μm±30.4, and 547μm±30.6, respectively. The mean differences in CCT were 15.30±9.52μm between AL-Scan and OCT (P<0.01), 17.15±8.42μm between AL-Scan and UP (P<0.01), and 1.85± 8.78μm between UP and OCT (P=0.067). All three methods of CCT measurement were closely correlated with each other.

CONCLUSION

The present study results suggest that, despite good agreement between the three devices, AL-Scan significantly underestimated CCT compared to UP and OCT. Therefore, clinicians should be aware that different results can be obtained using different devices for CCT measurements. It would be a better approach not to use them as interchangeable in clinical practice. CCT examination and follow-up should be performed using the same device, especially for patients who will undergo refractive surgery.

Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements with three different optical devices

Purpose:

The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate the agreement of central corneal thickness (CCT) values obtained with three different devices working according to optical principle in healthy eyes.

Methods:

60 eyes of 60 individuals (30 men and 30 women) were enrolled in this study. CCT measurements performed with Scheimpflug–Placido topographer (Sirius), spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (RTVue) with an anterior segment module, and optical biometer (AL-Scan) were compared. Bland–Altman analysis was used to demonstrate agreement between methods.

Results:

The mean age was 30.07 ± 7.313 years (range, 18–47 years). The mean CCT values obtained by RTVue, Sirius, and AL-Scan were 518.25 ± 36.38 µm, 526.08 ± 36.33 µm, and 513.50 ± 39.09 µm, respectively. The mean differences in CCT were 7.83 ± 14.15 µm between Sirius and RTVue, 12.58 ± 11.87 µm between Sirius and AL-Scan, and 4.75 ± 4.50 µm between RTVue and AL-Scan. The mean CCT was statistically different among the three groups (p < 0.05). All three modalities of CCT measurements correlated closely with each other, with Pearson’s correlation coefficients ranging from 0.924 to 0.961. The 95% limits of agreement were −19.90 to 35.56 µm between Sirius and RTVue, −10.69 to 35.85 µm between Sirius and AL-Scan, and −4.07 to 13.58 µm between RTVue and AL-Scan.

Conclusion:

Different results could be obtained through different noncontact devices in CCT measurements. Although the measurement values obtained by these devices show a high level of correlation, it would be a more correct approach to not use them directly interchangeably in clinical practice. Evaluation and follow-up of CCT should be performed using the same device.

Repeatability and Interchangeability of Topometric, Anterior Chamber and Corneal Wavefront Data Between Two Scheimpflug Camera Devices

Purpose

This study aims to assess the intra-operator repeatability and correlation of the Pentacam HR (device 1) and Sirius (device 2) in measuring anterior segment parameters and to evaluate the agreement of their readings and therefore their interchangeability in a clinical setting.

Methods

This is a prospective non-randomized study was conducted on the right eyes of 102 subjects coming to Eye World Hospital, Giza, Egypt. With each machine, four scans were taken by a single examiner. Each device was used to measure keratometric indices, corneal thickness, anterior chamber depth, anterior chamber angle, corneal diameter and corneal optical aberrations.

Results

Both devices show high repeatability for corneal thickness, corneal diameter, anterior chamber depth and keratometric indices (except for maximum keratometry, where device 1 shows high repeatability and device 2 shows low repeatability). On the other hand, both devices show poor repeatability for anterior chamber angle, Q-values, root mean square, spherical, coma and trefoil aberrations. The readings of the two devices are strongly correlated as regards only keratometric indices, corneal thickness and anterior chamber depth. In addition, the readings of the devices are in good agreement as regards only keratometric indices (except maximum keratometry), corneal thickness, anterior chamber depth, anterior chamber angle, root mean square, spherical and trefoil aberrations.

Conclusion

Both devices showed variable intra-observer repeatability, with the device 1 showing slightly higher repeatability. Despite the similarity between some of the readings of the two devices, caution is advised before considering them interchangeable. We therefore do not recommend using them in alternation in refractive surgery.