4.3 Article

Comparison of Anterior Segment Measurements with Scheimpflug/Placido Photography-Based Topography System and IOLMaster Partial Coherence Interferometry in Patients with Cataracts

Journal

JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 2014, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2014/540760

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Foundation of Wenzhou City Science & Technology Bureau [Y20110045, Y20120176]
  2. National Science and Technology Ministry [2012BAI08B04]
  3. Health Bureau of Zhejiang Province [2012KYB135]
  4. Scientific Research Fund of Zhejiang Provincial Education Department [Y201223147]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose. To assess the consistency of anterior segment measurements obtained using a Sirius Scheimpflug/Placido photography-based topography system(CSO, Italy) and IOLMaster partial coherence interferometry (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Germany) in eyes with cataracts. Methods. A total of 90 eyes of 90 patients were included in this prospective study. The anterior chamber depth (ACD), keratometry (K), corneal astigmatism axis, and white to white (WTW) values were randomly measured three times with Sirius and IOLMaster. Concordance between them was assessed by calculating 95% limits of agreement (LoA). Results. The ACD and K taken with the Sirius were statistically significantly higher than that taken with the IOLMaster; however, the Sirius significantly underestimated the WTW values compared with the IOLMaster. Good agreement was found for Km and ACD measurements, with 95% LoA of -0.20 to 0.54 mm and -0.16 to 0.34 mm, respectively. Poor agreement was observed for astigmatism axis and WTW measurements, as the 95% LoA was -23.96 to 23.36 degrees and -1.15 to 0.37 mm, respectively. Conclusion. With the exception of astigmatism axis and WTW, anterior segment measurements taken by Sirius and IOLMaster devices showed good agreement and may be used interchangeably in patients with cataracts.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available