Lisbon 2017 Delegate Registration Programme Exhibition Virtual Exhibition Satellites OneWorld Travel Discount
escrs app advert

Comparison of multiple anterior segment parameters obtained by 5 different topographers

Search Title by author or title

Session Details

Session Title: Presented Poster Session: Glaucoma and Imaging

Venue: Poster Village: Pod 3

First Author: : R.Melian SPAIN

Co Author(s): :    A. Garcia-Garcia   H. Carreras   V. Rodriguez        

Abstract Details

Purpose:

To study the agreement and compare the measures obtained by 5 topography devices based in 5 different technologies: Color light-emitting diode (LED) points (Cassini), concentric LED rings (Verion), Scheimpflug technology (Pentacam), Placido rings (Topolyzer) and partial coherence laser interferometry (IOLMaster700).

Setting:

Eurocanarias Oftalmologica Eye Clinic Calle Leon y Castillo, 211 35004 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria Spain

Methods:

30 eyes from 30 healthy patients were consecutively measured using Cassini, Verion, Pentacam, Topolyzer, IOLmaster700. White to White (W-W), anterior astigmatism, anterior chamber depth (ACD), escotopic pupil, pachymetry and pupil deviation were studied. The concordance among devices had been studied through the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and through Bland-Altman plots. The comparison was done using paired Student’s t-test.

Results:

Agreement obtained among all devices was very high when comparing power of anterior cornea (CCI>0,9) and W-W (CCI=0,8). It was also very high when comparing ACD and corneal pachymetry using Pentacam and IOLmaster (ICC>0,9). Anterior mean keratometry did not differed significantly when measured with Cassini than when measured with Pentacam, Topolyzer and IOLmaster, but instead it does differ when using Verion. At W-W analysis, significant difference was obtained when comparing all devices, but between Cassini and Verion. Looking at ACD, IOLmaster700 shows higher values than Pentacam (p>0,001), but they show no statistically significant difference when evaluating pachimetry

Conclusions:

High agreement is obtained in most of the tested parameters among the 5 devices. Some of the measurements differed significantly between devices so we must avoid using them indistinctively as they are not exchangeable.

Financial Disclosure:

NONE

Back to previous