RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To systematically compare and rank ocular measurements with optical and ultrasound biometers based on big data. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the US trial registry ( www. CLINICALTRIAL: gov ) were used to systematically search trials published up to October 22nd, 2020. We included comparative studies reporting the following parameters measured by at least two devices: axial length (AL), flattest meridian keratometry (Kf), steepest meridian keratometry (Ks), mean keratometry (Km), astigmatism (AST), astigmatism vectors J0 and J45, anterior chamber depth (ACD), aqueous depth (AQD), central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal diameter (CD) and lens thickness (LT). A network-based big data analysis was conducted using STATA version 13.1. RESULTS: Across 129 studies involving 17,181 eyes, 12 optical biometers and two ultrasound biometers (with both contact and immersion techniques) were identified. A network meta-analysis for AL and ACD measurements found that statistically significant differences existed when contact ultrasound biometry was compared with the optical biometers. There were no statistically significant differences among the four swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) based devices (IOLMaster 700, OA-2000, Argos and ANTERION). As for Ks, Km and CD, statistically significant differences were found when the Pentacam AXL was compared with the IOLMaster and IOLMaster 500. There were statistically significant differences for CCT when the OA-2000 was compared to Pentacam AXL, IOLMaster 700, Lenstar, AL-Scan and Galilei G6. CONCLUSION: For AL and ACD, contact ultrasound biometry obtains the lower values compared with optical biometers. The Pentacam AXL achieves the lowest values for keratometry and CD. The smallest value for CCT measurement is found with the OA-2000.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: To compare the difference in central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements in normal eyes between a rotating Scheimpflug camera combined with a Placido-disk corneal topographer (Sirius, CSO, Italy) and ultrasound pachymetry (USP). METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted for relevant studies published on PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to August 1st, 2019. Primary outcome measures were CCT measurements between Sirius and USP. A random effects model was used to pool CCT measurements. RESULTS: A total of twelve studies involving 862 eyes were included in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis found CCT measurements between Sirius and USP to be statistically significantly different (P < 0.0001). The mean difference between Sirius and USP was -11.26 µm with a 95% confidence interval (CI) (-16.92 µm, -5.60 µm). The heterogeneity was I2 = 60% (P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: CCT measurements with the Sirius Scheimpflug-Placido topographer were statistically significantly lower than USP. However, it may be argued that the mean difference of 11.26 µm is not a clinically significant difference.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To systematically compare and rank the predictability of no-history intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation methods after myopic laser refractive surgery. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the U.S. trial registry (www.ClinicalTrial.gov) were used to systematically search trials published up to August 2019. Included were case series studies reporting the following outcomes in patients with cataract undergoing phacoemulsification after laser refractive surgery: percentage of eyes with a refractive prediction error (PE) within ±0.50 and ±1.00 diopters (D), mean absolute error (MAE), and median absolute error (MedAE). A network meta-analysis was conducted using the STATA software version 13.1 (STATACorp LLC). RESULTS: Nineteen studies involving 1,098 eyes and 19 formulas were identified. A network meta-analysis for the percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.50 D found that ray-tracing (Okulix), intraoperative aberrometry (Optiwave Refractive Analysis [ORA]), BESSt, and Seitz/Speicher/Savini (Triple-S) (D-K SRK/T), and Fourier-Domain OCT-Based formulas were more predictive than the Wang/Koch/Maloney, Shammas-PL, modified Rosa, Ferrara, and Equivalent K reading at 4.5 mm using the Double-K Holladay 1 formulas. With regard to ranking, the top four formulas as per the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values for the percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.50 D were the Okulix, ORA, BESSt, and Triple-S (D-K SRK/T). With regard to MAE, the ORA showed lower errors when compared to the Shammas-PL formula. In this regard, the top four formulas based on the SUCRA values were the Triple-S, BESSt, ORA, and Fourier-Domain OCT-Based formulas. The SToP (SRK/T), ORA, Fourier-Domain OCT-Based, and BESSt formulas had the lowest MedAE. CONCLUSIONS: Considering all three outcome measures of highest percentages of eyes with a PE within ±0.50 and ±1.00 D, lowest MAE, and lowest MedAE, the top three no-history formulas for IOL power calculation in eyes with previous myopic corneal laser refractive surgery were: ORA, BESSt, and Triple-S (D-K SRK/T). [J Refract Surg. 2020;36(7):481-490.].

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of different protocols of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on VO2max improvements in healthy, overweight/obese and athletic adults, based on the classifications of work intervals, session volumes and training periods. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Medline, and Web of Science databases were searched up to April 2018. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials; healthy, overweight/obese or athletic adults; examined pre- and post-training VO2max/peak; HIIT in comparison to control or moderate intensity continuous training (MICT) groups. RESULTS: Fifty-three studies met the eligibility criteria. Overall, the degree of change in VO2max induced by HIIT varied by populations (SMD=0.41-1.81, p<0.05). When compared to control groups, even short-intervals (≤30s), low-volume (≤5min) and short-term HIIT (≤4weeks) elicited clear beneficial effects (SMD=0.79-1.65, p<0.05) on VO2max/peak. However, long-interval (≥2min), high-volume (≥15min) and moderate to long-term (≥4-12weeks) HIIT displayed significantly larger effects on VO2max (SMD=0.50-2.48, p<0.05). When compared to MICT, only long-interval (≥2min), high-volume (≥15min) and moderate to long-term (≥4-12weeks) HIIT showed beneficial effects (SMD=0.65-1.07, p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Short-intervals (≤30s), low-volume (≤5min) and short-term (≤4weeks) HIIT represent effective and time-efficient strategies for developing VO2max, especially for the general population. To maximize the training effects on VO2max, long-interval (≥2min), high-volume (≥15min) and moderate to long-term (≥4-12weeks) HIIT are recommended.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To systematically compare the efficacy, predictability, safety, postoperative haze, pain scores, and epithelial healing time of four corneal surface ablation procedures. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the U.S. trial registry were searched up to June 2018. Randomized controlled trials were selected. Efficacy (uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/20 or better), predictability (refractive spherical equivalent within ±0.50 diopters [D] of the target), and safety (loss of two or more lines of spectacle corrected distance visual acuity) were set as primary outcome measures. Haze, pain scores, and epithelial healing time were set as secondary outcome measures. RESULTS: Eighteen studies involving 1,423 eyes were included. According to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, the quality of outcomes were moderate to high (70.6%). There were no differences in efficacy, predictability, safety, haze, day 1 pain, and epithelial healing time between treatments. Epithelial laser in situ keratomileusis (epi-LASIK) had statistically significantly higher pain scores on day 3 compared to photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) (weighted mean differences [WMD] = 2.2, 95% credible intervals [CrI] = 0.19 to 4.01) and transepithelial PRK (T-PRK) (WMD = 2.7, 95% CrI = 0.51 to 4.84). The surface under the cumulative ranking curve ranking results (best to worst) showed laser epithelial keratomileusis (LASEK) ranked highest for efficacy, predictability, safety, and day 1 pain scores. Epi-LASIK ranked best for grade 1 haze scores. T-PRK ranked best for haze of 0.5 or higher, haze scores day 3 pain scores, and epithelial healing time. CONCLUSIONS: Surface laser refractive surgeries are comparable in terms of efficacy, predictability, safety, and postoperative haze except for day 3 pain scores, with epi-LASIK being more painful compared to PRK and T-PRK. [J Refract Surg. 2018;34(11):726-735.].

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Purpose: To systematically compare epithelial-off standard (SCXL) to accelerated corneal collagen cross-linking (ACXL) for the treatment of keratoconus. Methods: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the US trial registry were searched for trials comparing SCXL and ACXL for keratoconus up to October 2017. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Primary outcomes were changes in uncorrected distance visual acuity, maximum keratometry (Kmax), and mean keratometry (mean K). Secondary outcomes were changes in corrected distance visual acuity, mean refractive spherical equivalent, central corneal thickness (CCT), and endothelial cell density (ECD). Results: Eleven trials were included. For primary outcomes, SCXL showed a greater reduction in Kmax (SMD 0.32; 95% CI 0.16, 0.48) than ACXL. For secondary outcomes, the decrease in CCT (SMD 0.32; 95% CI 0.03, 0.61) and ECD (SMD 0.26; 95% CI 0.06, 0.46) was less with ACXL than with SCXL. For the other outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences. Conclusions: SCXL has a greater effect in terms of reduction in Kmax than ACXL, while ACXL induces less reduction in CCT and ECD than SCXL. Further well-designed randomized controlled trials comparing ACXL and SCXL are indicated.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To systematically compare standard epithelium-off corneal collagen cross-linking (SCXL) and transepithelial corneal collagen cross-linking (TECXL) for treating keratoconus. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the US trial registry (ClinicalTrials.gov), VIP Database, Wanfang Databse, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure searches up to February 2017 were conducted. Primary outcomes were changes at 1 year in uncorrected distance visual acuity, maximum keratometry (Kmax), and mean keratometry (mean K). Secondary outcomes were changes at 1 year in corrected distance visual acuity, mean refractive spherical equivalent, central corneal thickness, endothelial cell density, and the occurrence of adverse events. RESULTS: Eight studies with a total of 455 eyes were included. For primary outcomes, SCXL showed a greater reduction in mean K [standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.28; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.03-0.53; P = 0.03] compared with TECXL. Subgroup analysis indicated that SCXL had a comparable effect on reducing mean K with TECXL protocols using chemical enhancers (SMD 0.05; 95% CI, -0.36 to 0.45; P = 0.82) but a greater reduction in mean K compared with TECXL with current iontophoretic protocols (SMD 0.43; 95% CI, 0.10-0.75; P = 0.01). For the other outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of less reduction in mean K with current iontophoretic protocols, analysis of the limited number of comparative studies available seems to demonstrate that SCXL and TECXL have a comparable effect on visual, refractive, pachymetric, and endothelial parameters at 1 year after surgery. Further follow-up is required to determine whether these techniques are comparable in the long-term.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The purpose of this paper was to systematically review the literature and examine the research methodological quality, measurement properties and feasibility of the Loughborough Soccer Passing Test (LSPT). Databases were searched up to June 2017. Twenty five studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The main methodological limitations of the studies were the small sample size and the lack of information on participants and eligibility criteria. Results showed that test-retest reliability of the LSPT was moderate to excellent. Good discriminative validity was found between playing levels and ages. The LSPT was positively correlated with sprint, dribbling, and agility test; however, a weak correlation was established with in-game performance. Test responsiveness (an ability to detect change over time) to some external interventions was observed in studies. Adjusted Cronbach's alpha (α = 0.67), smallest worthwhile change (SWC = 0.8-3.8) and minimal detectable change (MDC50 = 1.9-11.3) were calculated based on available data. The findings indicate that the LSPT has acceptable test-retest reliability and discriminative validity. However, it may not be a feasible and effective way to interpret the intra-individual change of skill performance in practice. Future work should be undertaken to establish additional measurement properties of the LSPT, and to improve its practical feasibility.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To compare the postoperative efficacy, predictability, safety, and visual quality of all major forms of laser corneal refractive surgeries for correcting myopia. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. METHODS: Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the US trial registry was conducted up to November 2015. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) reporting in accordance with the eligibility criteria were included in this review. We performed a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis. RESULTS: Forty-eight RCTs were identified. For efficacy (uncorrected visual acuity [UCVA]), there were no statistically significant differences between any pair of treatments analyzed. The SUCRA (surface under the cumulative ranking curve) ranking (from best to worst) was femtosecond-based laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK), LASIK, small-incision lenticule extraction, femtosecond lenticule extraction (FLEx), photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), laser epithelial keratomileusis (LASEK), epipolis (Epi)-LASIK, transepithelial PRK (T-PRK). For predictability (refractive spherical equivalent [SE]), a statistically significant difference was found when FS-LASIK was compared with LASIK (odds ratio [OR] 2.29, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.20-4.14), PRK (OR 2.16, 95% CrI 1.15-4.03), LASEK (OR 2.09, 95% CrI 1.08-4.55), and Epi-LASIK (OR 2.74, 95% CrI 1.11-6.20). The SUCRA ranking (from best to worst) was FS-LASIK, T-PRK, LASEK, PRK, LASIK, Epi-LASIK. There were no statistically significant differences in the safety (best spectacle-corrected visual acuity) comparisons. For both postoperative higher-order aberrations (HOAs) and contrast sensitivity (CS), there were no statistically significant differences between any pair of treatments analyzed. The SUCRA ranking results show that some corneal surface ablation techniques (PRK and LASEK) rank highest. CONCLUSIONS: This network meta-analysis shows that there were no statistically significant differences in either visual outcomes (efficacy and safety) or visual quality (HOAs and CS). FS-LASIK behaved better in predictability than any other type of surgeries.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

A meta-analysis to compare ocular biometry measured by optical low-coherence reflectometry (Lenstar LS900; Haag Streit) and partial coherence interferometry (the IOLMaster optical biometer; Carl Zeiss Meditec). A systematic literature search was conducted for articles published up to August 6th 2015 in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, Embase, China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database and Wanfang Data. A total of 18 studies involving 1921 eyes were included. There were no statistically significant differences in axial length (mean difference [MD] 0 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.08 to 0.08 mm; p = 0.92), anterior chamber depth (MD 0.02 mm; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.10 mm; p = 0.67), flat keratometry (MD -0.05 D; 95% CI -0.16 to 0.06 D; p = 0.39), steep keratometry (MD -0.09 D; 95% CI -0.20 to 0.03 D; p = 0.13), and mean keratometry (MD -0.15 D; 95% CI -0.30 to 0.00 D; p = 0.05). The white to white distance showed a statistically significant difference (MD -0.14 mm; 95% CI -0.25 to -0.02 mm; p = 0.02). In conclusion, there was no difference in the comparison of AL, ACD and keratometry readings between the Lenstar and IOLMaster. However the WTW distance indicated a statistically significant difference between the two devices. Apart from the WTW distance, measurements for AL, ACD and keratometry readings may be used interchangeability with both devices.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of different interventions to slow down the progression of myopia in children. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to August 2014. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving interventions for controlling the progression of myopia in children with a treatment duration of at least 1 year for analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were mean annual change in refraction (diopters/year) and mean annual change in axial length (millimeters/year). RESULTS: Thirty RCTs (involving 5422 eyes) were identified. Network meta-analysis showed that in comparison with placebo or single vision spectacle lenses, high-dose atropine (refraction change: 0.68 [0.52-0.84]; axial length change: -0.21 [-0.28 to -0.16]), moderate-dose atropine (refraction change: 0.53 [0.28-0.77]; axial length change: -0.21 [-0.32 to -0.12]), and low-dose atropine (refraction change: 0.53 [0.21-0.85]; axial length change: -0.15 [-0.25 to -0.05]) markedly slowed myopia progression. Pirenzepine (refraction change: 0.29 [0.05-0.52]; axial length change: -0.09 [-0.17 to -0.01]), orthokeratology (axial length change: -0.15 [-0.22 to -0.08]), and peripheral defocus modifying contact lenses (axial length change: -0.11 [-0.20 to -0.03]) showed moderate effects. Progressive addition spectacle lenses (refraction change: 0.14 [0.02-0.26]; axial length change: -0.04 [-0.09 to -0.01]) showed slight effects. CONCLUSIONS: This network analysis indicates that a range of interventions can significantly reduce myopia progression when compared with single vision spectacle lenses or placebo. In terms of refraction, atropine, pirenzepine, and progressive addition spectacle lenses were effective. In terms of axial length, atropine, orthokeratology, peripheral defocus modifying contact lenses, pirenzepine, and progressive addition spectacle lenses were effective. The most effective interventions were pharmacologic, that is, muscarinic antagonists such as atropine and pirenzepine. Certain specially designed contact lenses, including orthokeratology and peripheral defocus modifying contact lenses, had moderate effects, whereas specially designed spectacle lenses showed minimal effect.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background. To evaluate the efficacy and acceptability of orthokeratology for slowing myopic progression in children with a well conducted evidence-based analysis. Design. Meta-analysis. Participants. Children from previously reported comparative studies were treated by orthokeratology versus control. Methods. A systematic literature retrieval was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The included studies were subjected to meta-analysis using Stata version 10.1. Main Outcome Measures. Axial length change (efficacy) and dropout rates (acceptability) during 2-year follow-up. Results. Eight studies involving 769 subjects were included. At 2-year follow-up, a statistically significant difference was observed in axial length change between the orthokeratology and control groups, with a weighted mean difference (WMD) of -0.25 mm (95% CI, -0.30 to -0.21). The pooled myopic control rate declined with time, with 55, 51, 51, and 41% obtained after 6, 12, 18, and 24 months of treatment, respectively. No statistically significant difference was obtained for dropout rates between the orthokeratology and control groups at 2-year follow-up (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.22). Conclusions. Orthokeratology is effective and acceptable for slowing myopic progression in children with careful education and monitoring.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: To identify possible differences between laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy and epipolis laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia. DESIGN: Meta-analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Patients from previously reported comparative studies treated by laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy versus epipolis laser in situ keratomileusis. METHODS: A systematic literature retrieval was conducted in the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library, up to January 2013. The included studies were subject to a meta-analysis using a RevMan 5.1 version software. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The differences in efficacy, predictability, safety, epithelial healing time, pain perception and corneal haze formation. RESULTS: A total of six studies involving 517 eyes were included. There were no statistically significant differences in the final proportion of eyes with uncorrected visual acuity of 6/6 or better (P = 0.43), mean postoperative uncorrected visual acuity (P = 0.53), final proportion of eyes with refraction within ± 0.50 D (P = 0.62) and ± 1.00 D (P = 0.16) of target, final proportion of eyes losing two or more lines of best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (P = 1.00), healing time of corneal epithelium (P = 0.58), final proportion of eyes with corneal haze grade 0.5 or higher (P = 0.26), and corneal haze levels (P = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in efficacy, predictability, safety, epithelial healing time and corneal haze formation between laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy and epipolis laser in situ keratomileusis, but the result was limited. Future more data are required to detect the potential differences between the two procedures.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the repeatability and agreement of central and peripheral corneal thickness (CT) measurements by high resolution Pentacam rotating Scheimpflug photography and Visante optical coherence tomography (OCT) in unoperated myopic eyes and eyes after Laser In Situ Keratomileusis (LASIK). METHODS: CT at central, thinnest, 1.0 mm and 2.5 mm superior, inferior, nasal and temporal periphery locations, and the location of the corneal thinnest thickness were measured using Pentacam and Visante OCT in 60 myopia patients (60 eyes) and 60 patients (60 eyes) after LASIK. The results were analyzed by paired-t test, Pearson correlation analysis and Bland-Altman method. RESULTS: Both Pentacam and Visante OCT demonstrated high intraobserver repeatability, with all intraclass correlation coefficients and Cronbach's alphas were more than 0.9, and coefficient of variation were less than 0.9%. Significantly higher CoV was measured with Pentacam than by Visante OCT in at central (0.46 ± 0.30), thinnest (0.43 ± 0.28) and 1.0 mm locations in both groups (t = 2.465, 2.226, P < 0.05), but no statistically significant difference were found at 2.5 mm locations in healthy subjects and all locations in post-LASIK eyes (t = -0.518, 1.542, -0.876, 0.756, P > 0.05). The thickness of central corneal with Pentacam was (543.01 ± 22.89) µm, the thinnest point was (540.61 ± 22.84) µm, they were greater than the value of Visante OCT (t = 17.946, 23.071, P < 0.05). The Pearson correlation coefficients were all more than 0.9 (all r > 0.9, P < 0.01). The Bland-Altman plots showed the 95% LoA between both devices were lower than 22 µm at central, thinnest and 1.0 mm locations. However, the 95% LoA were 24 µm to 44 µm at 2.5 mm locations. CONCLUSIONS: Pentacam and Visante OCT demonstrate high repeatability for central and peripheral CT measurements in young myopia and post-LASIK eyes. However, both devices can't be used interchangeably for measurements of peripheral CT.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To comprehensively assess the precision and agreement of anterior corneal power measurements using 8 different devices. METHODS: Thirty-five eyes from 35 healthy subjects were included in the prospective study. In the first session, a single examiner performed on each subject randomly measurements with the RC-5000 (Tomey Corp., Japan), KR-8000 (Topcon, Japan), IOLMaster (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Germany), E300 (Medmont International, Australia), Allegro Topolyzer (Wavelight AG, Germany), Vista (EyeSys, TX), Pentacam (Oculus, Germany) and Sirius (CSO, Italy). Measurements were repeated in the second session (1 to 2 weeks later). Repeatability and reproducibility of corneal power measurements were assessed based on the intrasession and intersession within-subject standard deviation (Sw), repeatability (2.77Sw), coefficient of variation (COV), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Agreement was evaluated by 95% limits of agreement (LoA). RESULTS: All devices demonstrated high repeatability and reproducibility of the keratometric values (2.77Sw<0.36D, COV<0.3%, ICC>0.98). Repeated-measures analysis of variance with Bonferroni post test showed statistically significant differences (P<0.01) among mean keratometric values of most instruments; the largest differences were observed between the EyeSys Vista and Medmont E300. Good agreement (i.e., 95%LoA within ± 0.5D) was found between most instruments for flat, steep and mean keratometry, except for EyeSys and Medmont. Repeatability and reproducibility of vectors J(0) and J(45) was good, as the ICCs were higher than 0.9, except J(45) of Medmont and Pentacam. For the 95% LoAs of J(0) and J(45), they were all ≤ ± 0.31 among any two paired devices. CONCLUSIONS: The 8 devices showed excellent repeatability and reproducibility. The results obtained using the RC-5000, KR-8000, IOLMaster, Allegro Topolyzer, Pentacam and Sirius were comparable, suggesting that they could be used interchangeably in most clinical settings. Caution is warranted with the measurements of the EyeSys Vista and Medmont E300, which should not be used interchangeably with other devices due to lower agreement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01587287.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To compare the repeatability and reproducibility of central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements by high-resolution (HR) rotating Scheimpflug imaging and Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography (FD-OCT). CCT measurements were compared to those determined by ultrasound pachymetry (UP). METHODS: In 35 healthy eyes, intra-observer repeatability for HR Scheimpflug (Pentacam) and FD-OCT (RTVue) systems was determined in consecutive images taken by an observer in the shortest time possible. Imaging was repeated again by a second observer to evaluate inter-observer reproducibility. The CCT measurements were compared among Scheimpflug, FD-OCT and UP images. RESULTS: Mean coefficients of repeatability were 0.48% for Scheimpflug and 0.26% for FD-OCT. For Scheimpflug, the coefficient of inter-operator reproducibility was 0.87%. For FD-OCT, the coefficient of inter-operator reproducibility was 0.45%. The CCT measurements by Scheimpflug, OCT and UP images were (mean ± standard deviation) 521.7 ± 27.6 µm, 510.8 ± 28.6 µm and 516.5 ± 27.6 µm, respectively. The differences between instruments were statistically significant. The 95% limits of agreement in CCT were -0.7 to 22.5 µm for Pentacam-OCT, -13.4 to 24.0 µm for Pentacam-UP and -26.7 to 15.4 µm for OCT-UP. There was a high degree of correlation between CCT measured by all 3 methods. CONCLUSION: Noncontact measurements of CCT with HR Scheimpflug and FD-OCT systems yielded excellent repeatability and reproducibility and can be used interchangeably. Although both devices were comparable with UP; in clinical practice, the measurements acquired by optical modalities are not directly interchangeable with UP measurements.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To assess the repeatability and reproducibility of central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements by high-resolution rotating Scheimpflug imaging (Pentacam, Oculus) and Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography (RTvue-100, Optovue) after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and to compare the agreement with ultrasound pachymetry (USP). METHODS: Forty-seven eyes of 47 patients after LASIK were included in the study. The first examiner took two successive Pentacam and RTvue CCT measurements, and this was repeated once again by the second examiner to assess intraobserver and interobserver repeatability and reproducibility. After performing non-contact examinations, the corneas were measured by USP to compare the level of agreement among the three devices. RESULTS: All Pentacamcenter, Pentacamapex, Pentacamthinnest, and RTvue CCT measurements demonstrated high intraobserver repeatability, with respective precision (1.96 within-subject standard deviation) and intraclass correlation coefficients of 7.52, 7.43, 7.55, and 3.81 µm and 0.985, 0.986, 0.986, and 0.997; interobserver repeatability results were similar. All coefficients of variation were low: <1% for all measures. Compared with Pentacam and USP measurements, the RTvue measurement significantly underestimated CCT by a mean of 10.52 to 15.28 µm (p < 0.001) and 9.17 µm (p < 0.001), respectively. The agreement of USP with Pentacam and RTvue by Bland-Altman analysis spanned over 30 µm. The agreement of Pentacam with RTvue spanned approximate 20 µm. CONCLUSIONS: Both Pentacam imaging and RTvue Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography provide reliable and interchangeable measurement of CCT in post-LASIK corneas. However, they cannot be considered to be clinically interchangeable with USP.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To compare central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), and keratometry (K) readings measured using optical low-coherence reflectometry (OLCR) biometry and high-resolution rotating Scheimpflug photography. SETTING: Eye Hospital of Wenzhou Medical College, Wenzhou, China. DESIGN: Comparative case series. METHODS: The CCT, ACD endothelium to lens, ACD epithelium to lens, and K (mean; in flattest meridian; in steepest meridian) were measured 5 times using the LenStar/Biograph OLCR biometer and 3 times with the Pentacam Scheimpflug system in eyes of healthy volunteers. Concordance was evaluated using paired t tests, the Pearson correlation, and Bland-Altman analyses. RESULTS: The CCT, ACD endothelium to lens, and ACD epithelium to lens measured with the Scheimpflug system were slightly, albeit significantly, higher than with the OLCR biometer (P<.05); the respective 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were -8.2 µm to 15.7 µm, -0.11 to 0.15 mm, and -0.13 to 0.17 mm. However, the Scheimpflug system gave significantly flatter readings for K in the flattest meridian (95% LoA, -0.54 to 0.32 diopters [D]), K in the steepest meridian (95% LoA, -0.63 to 0.45 D), and mean K (95% LoA, -0.53 to 0.33 D) (P<.001). The CCT, ACD, and K readings were all highly correlated between the 2 devices (r >0.95, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The CCT and ACD measurements with the OLCR biometer and Scheimpflug system can be used interchangeably in healthy young subjects. However, for K measurements, these devices have wide LoA so may not be interchangeable under certain clinical circumstances.

Asunto(s)