The Reliability of Successive Scheimpflug Imaging and Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography Measurements Decreases With Increasing Keratoconus Severity.
Journal
Cornea
ISSN: 1536-4798
Titre abrégé: Cornea
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8216186
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Nov 2021
01 Nov 2021
Historique:
received:
19
09
2020
accepted:
27
11
2020
entrez:
11
10
2021
pubmed:
12
10
2021
medline:
11
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study assesses the reliability of successive measurements of tomographic parameters in different keratoconus (KC) stages with 2 different devices. A total of 125 eyes (13 controls: 24 eyes, and 73 patients with KC: stages 1|2|3|4, n = 24|24|26|27 according to Topographical KC Classification) were repeatedly examined 5 times with the rotating Scheimpflug tomograph (Pentacam HR, Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany) and an anterior segment optical coherence tomograph (Casia 2, Tomey, Nagoya, Japan). Outcome measures included 1) mean anterior (KA) and 2) mean posterior powers (KP), 3) mean anterior (AC) and 4) posterior cylinders (PC), 5) maximal anterior power (Kmax), and 6) thinnest corneal thickness (TCT). The results were compared using the Wilcoxon matched pairs test considering P values <0.05 as statistically significant. Standard deviations (SDs) of repeated measurements with both devices were compared between and within the KC stages. The Pentacam values for PC, Kmax, and TCT were significantly elevated compared with those of the anterior segment optical coherence tomograph (P < 0.0001). The SDs of successive measurements of KA and KP, AC and posterior cylinders, Kmax, and TCT increased from (Casia 2|Pentacam) 0.10|0.09 diopter (D), 0.01|0.02 D, 0.15|0.08 D, 0.02|0.05 D, 0.17|0.18 D, and 0.92|5.25 μm in controls to 0.47|0.66 D, 0.1|0.2 D, 0.86|0.9 D, 0.17|0.3 D, 0.89|1.65 D, and 7.68|15 μm in TKC4. Significant differences occurred between the 2 devices for eyes within the same KC stage. The reproducibility of measurements decreases with increasing KC severity in both devices. Although both devices seem reliable, the interdevice differences regarding measured tomographic parameters lead to the conclusion that Pentacam HR and Casia 2 measurements are not interchangeable in neither healthy nor KC corneas.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34633357
doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000002657
pii: 00003226-202111000-00011
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03923101']
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1433-1439Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
E. Flockerzi has received a travel grant to the Second and Third Ophthalmology Cystinosis Forum (Orphan Europe, Ulm, Germany) and an invitation to a seminar on presentation training organized by the Santen GmbH (Munich, Germany). T. Eppig was a member of the Institute of Experimental Ophthalmology, Saarland University Medical Center (Homburg, Germany), at the time of data collection and is now an employee of the Amiplant GmbH (Schnaittach, Germany). The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Références
Goebels S, Eppig T, Wagenpfeil S, et al. Staging of keratoconus indices regarding tomography, topography, and biomechanical measurements. Am J Ophthalmol. 2015;159:733–738.e3.
Gomes JAP, Tan D, Rapuano CJ, et al. Global consensus on keratoconus and ectatic diseases. Cornea. 2015;34:359–369.
Duncan JK, Belin MW, Borgstrom M. Assessing progression of keratoconus: novel tomographic determinants. Eye Vis.2016;3:6.
Belin MW, Meyer JJ, Duncan JK, et al. Assessing progression of keratoconus and cross-linking efficacy: the Belin ABCD progression display. Int J Kerat Ect Cor Dis. 2017;6:1–10.
Belin MW, Duncan JK. Keratoconus: the ABCD grading system. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2016;233:701–707.
Scheimpflug T. Method of distorting plane images by means of lenses and mirrors for photography and for other purposes. 1904. Available at: https://patents.google.com/patent/US751347A/en . Accessed February 9, 2019.
Miháltz K, Kovács I, Takács A, et al. Evaluation of keratometric, pachymetric, and elevation parameters of keratoconic corneas with pentacam. Cornea. 2009;28:976–980.
Ghoreishi SM, Mortazavi SAA, Abtahi ZA, et al. Comparison of Scheimpflug and swept-source anterior segment optical coherence tomography in normal and keratoconus eyes. Int Ophthalmol. 2017;37:965–971.
Nakagawa T, Maeda N, Higashiura R, et al. Corneal topographic analysis in patients with keratoconus using 3-dimensional anterior segment optical coherence tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37:1871–1878.
Szalai E, Berta A, Hassan Z, et al. Reliability and repeatability of swept-source Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography and Scheimpflug imaging in keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38:485–494.
Kanellopoulos AJ, Asimellis G. Comparison of high-resolution Scheimpflug and high-frequency ultrasound biomicroscopy to anterior-segment OCT corneal thickness measurements. Clin Ophthalmol. 2013;7:2239–2247.
Goebels S, Seitz B, Langenbucher A. Diagnostics and stage-oriented therapy of keratoconus: introduction to the Homburg keratoconus center (HKC). Ophthalmologe. 2013;110:808–809.
Flockerzi E, Xanthopoulou K, Goebels S, et al. Keratoconus staging by decades–a baseline ABCD classification of 1,000 patients in the Homburg keratoconus center (HKC). Br J Ophthalmol. 2020 [epub ahead of print]. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316789.
doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316789
Read SA, Collins MJ. Diurnal variation of corneal shape and thickness. Optom Vis Sci. 2009;86:170–180.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–310.
Flockerzi E, Daas L, Seitz B. Structural changes in the corneal subbasal nerve plexus in keratoconus. Acta Ophthalmol. 2020;98:e928–e932.
Belin MW, Ambrósio R. Scheimpflug imaging for keratoconus and ectatic disease. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2013;61:401.
Greenstein SA, Shah VP, Fry KL, et al. Corneal thickness changes after corneal collagen crosslinking for keratoconus and corneal ectasia: one-year results. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37:691–700.
Matar C, Daas L, Suffo S, et al. Reliability of corneal tomography after implantation of intracorneal ring segments for keratoconus [in German]. Ophthalmologe. 2020;117:1092–1099.
Schuerch K, Tappeiner C, Frueh BE. Analysis of pseudoprogression after corneal cross-linking in children with progressive keratoconus. Acta Ophthalmol. 2016;94:e592–e599.
Hatch W, El-Defrawy S, Ong Tone S, et al. Accelerated corneal cross-linking: efficacy, risk of progression, and characteristics affecting outcomes. A large, single-center prospective study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2020;213:76–87.
Chen D, Lam AK. Reliability and repeatability of the Pentacam on corneal curvatures. Clin Exp Optom. 2009;92:110–118.
Wonneberger W, Sterner B, MacLean U, et al. Repeated same-day versus single tomography measurements of keratoconic eyes for analysis of disease progression. Cornea. 2018;37:474–479.
Huang J, Ding X, Savini G, et al. A comparison between Scheimpflug imaging and optical coherence tomography in measuring corneal thickness. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:1951–1958.
Schröder S, Langenbucher A, Schrecker J. Comparison of corneal elevation and pachymetry measurements made by two state of the art corneal tomographers with different measurement principles. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0223770.
Zhang T, Zhou Y, Young CA, et al. Comparison of a new swept-source anterior segment optical coherence tomography and a Scheimpflug camera for measurement of corneal curvature. Cornea. 2020;39:818–822.
Viswanathan D, Kumar NL, Males JJ, et al. Comparative analysis of corneal measurements obtained from a Scheimpflug camera and an integrated Placido-optical coherence tomography device in normal and keratoconic eyes. Acta Ophthalmol. 2015;93:e488–e494.
Alipour F, Letafatnejad M, Beheshtnejad AH, et al. Corneal biomechanical findings in contact lens induced corneal warpage. J Ophthalmol. 2016;2016:5603763.