Export Ready — 

Interchangeability between Placido disc and Scheimpflug system: quantitative and qualitative analysis

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Stefano,Vinícius Silbiger de
Publication Date: 2010
Other Authors: Melo Junior,Luiz Alberto Soares, Mallmann,Felipe, Schor,Paulo
Format: Article
Language: eng
Source: Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online)
Download full: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-27492010000400013
Summary: PURPOSE: Many systems try to replace Placido disc-based topographers, such as those based in Scheimpflug principles. The purpose of this study is to check if they are interchangeable. METHODS: Quantitative analysis evaluated data obtained from EyeSys and Pentacam, i.e. simulated keratometric values, in addition to flattest and steepest keratometric values. Sixty-three maps from each device (EyeSys scale=0.5 D; Pentacam scale= 0.25 D) were used for the comparison. Qualitative analysis selected 10 EyeSys and 15 Pentacam topographies used in the quantitative evaluation. Aspheric, keratoconus suspects (KS) and established keratoconus corneas were included. Four groups (children [CH], non-physicians adults [AD], residents in ophthalmology [OP] and refractive surgeons [RS]) were asked to match the topographies belonging to the same eye. RESULTS: Analysis showed that the parameters are correlated; however they are not clinically similar. In the qualitative analysis, the percent of correct matches increased when KS was removed. CH group was statistically different from every group in these comparisons. When only KS was considered, CH vs. OP, CH vs. RS and AD vs. RS remained statistically different. AD vs. OP showed no relevant difference in any comparison. CONCLUSIONS: The systems are not fully interchangeable, yet they are correlated. Practitioners who are adapting to Pentacam should use the 0.25 D scale maps and transform formulas that use EyeSys parameters. Only with persistent training may the topographies be properly matched; KS corneas are more difficult to be correctly paired.
id CBO-2_24cd9a8e28d26ae8c1f1c12343cbe679
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0004-27492010000400013
network_acronym_str CBO-2
network_name_str Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Interchangeability between Placido disc and Scheimpflug system: quantitative and qualitative analysisCorneal topographyOptometryRefractive surgical proceduresKeratoconusCorneaPURPOSE: Many systems try to replace Placido disc-based topographers, such as those based in Scheimpflug principles. The purpose of this study is to check if they are interchangeable. METHODS: Quantitative analysis evaluated data obtained from EyeSys and Pentacam, i.e. simulated keratometric values, in addition to flattest and steepest keratometric values. Sixty-three maps from each device (EyeSys scale=0.5 D; Pentacam scale= 0.25 D) were used for the comparison. Qualitative analysis selected 10 EyeSys and 15 Pentacam topographies used in the quantitative evaluation. Aspheric, keratoconus suspects (KS) and established keratoconus corneas were included. Four groups (children [CH], non-physicians adults [AD], residents in ophthalmology [OP] and refractive surgeons [RS]) were asked to match the topographies belonging to the same eye. RESULTS: Analysis showed that the parameters are correlated; however they are not clinically similar. In the qualitative analysis, the percent of correct matches increased when KS was removed. CH group was statistically different from every group in these comparisons. When only KS was considered, CH vs. OP, CH vs. RS and AD vs. RS remained statistically different. AD vs. OP showed no relevant difference in any comparison. CONCLUSIONS: The systems are not fully interchangeable, yet they are correlated. Practitioners who are adapting to Pentacam should use the 0.25 D scale maps and transform formulas that use EyeSys parameters. Only with persistent training may the topographies be properly matched; KS corneas are more difficult to be correctly paired.Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia2010-08-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-27492010000400013Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia v.73 n.4 2010reponame:Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online)instname:Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia (CBO)instacron:CBO10.1590/S0004-27492010000400013info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessStefano,Vinícius Silbiger deMelo Junior,Luiz Alberto SoaresMallmann,FelipeSchor,Pauloeng2010-10-04T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0004-27492010000400013Revistahttp://aboonline.org.br/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpaboonline@cbo.com.br||abo@cbo.com.br1678-29250004-2749opendoar:2010-10-04T00:00Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online) - Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia (CBO)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Interchangeability between Placido disc and Scheimpflug system: quantitative and qualitative analysis
title Interchangeability between Placido disc and Scheimpflug system: quantitative and qualitative analysis
spellingShingle Interchangeability between Placido disc and Scheimpflug system: quantitative and qualitative analysis
Stefano,Vinícius Silbiger de
Corneal topography
Optometry
Refractive surgical procedures
Keratoconus
Cornea
title_short Interchangeability between Placido disc and Scheimpflug system: quantitative and qualitative analysis
title_full Interchangeability between Placido disc and Scheimpflug system: quantitative and qualitative analysis
title_fullStr Interchangeability between Placido disc and Scheimpflug system: quantitative and qualitative analysis
title_full_unstemmed Interchangeability between Placido disc and Scheimpflug system: quantitative and qualitative analysis
title_sort Interchangeability between Placido disc and Scheimpflug system: quantitative and qualitative analysis
author Stefano,Vinícius Silbiger de
author_facet Stefano,Vinícius Silbiger de
Melo Junior,Luiz Alberto Soares
Mallmann,Felipe
Schor,Paulo
author_role author
author2 Melo Junior,Luiz Alberto Soares
Mallmann,Felipe
Schor,Paulo
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Stefano,Vinícius Silbiger de
Melo Junior,Luiz Alberto Soares
Mallmann,Felipe
Schor,Paulo
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Corneal topography
Optometry
Refractive surgical procedures
Keratoconus
Cornea
topic Corneal topography
Optometry
Refractive surgical procedures
Keratoconus
Cornea
description PURPOSE: Many systems try to replace Placido disc-based topographers, such as those based in Scheimpflug principles. The purpose of this study is to check if they are interchangeable. METHODS: Quantitative analysis evaluated data obtained from EyeSys and Pentacam, i.e. simulated keratometric values, in addition to flattest and steepest keratometric values. Sixty-three maps from each device (EyeSys scale=0.5 D; Pentacam scale= 0.25 D) were used for the comparison. Qualitative analysis selected 10 EyeSys and 15 Pentacam topographies used in the quantitative evaluation. Aspheric, keratoconus suspects (KS) and established keratoconus corneas were included. Four groups (children [CH], non-physicians adults [AD], residents in ophthalmology [OP] and refractive surgeons [RS]) were asked to match the topographies belonging to the same eye. RESULTS: Analysis showed that the parameters are correlated; however they are not clinically similar. In the qualitative analysis, the percent of correct matches increased when KS was removed. CH group was statistically different from every group in these comparisons. When only KS was considered, CH vs. OP, CH vs. RS and AD vs. RS remained statistically different. AD vs. OP showed no relevant difference in any comparison. CONCLUSIONS: The systems are not fully interchangeable, yet they are correlated. Practitioners who are adapting to Pentacam should use the 0.25 D scale maps and transform formulas that use EyeSys parameters. Only with persistent training may the topographies be properly matched; KS corneas are more difficult to be correctly paired.
publishDate 2010
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2010-08-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-27492010000400013
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-27492010000400013
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S0004-27492010000400013
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia v.73 n.4 2010
reponame:Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online)
instname:Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia (CBO)
instacron:CBO
instname_str Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia (CBO)
instacron_str CBO
institution CBO
reponame_str Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online)
collection Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia (Online) - Conselho Brasileiro de Oftalmologia (CBO)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv aboonline@cbo.com.br||abo@cbo.com.br
_version_ 1754209026443313152