Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery
Volume 35, Issue 5 , Pages 856-862, May 2009

Comparison of anterior and posterior elevation map measurements between 2 Scheimpflug imaging systems

From the Department of Ophthalmology, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

Received 23 May 2008; received in revised form 6 December 2008; accepted 12 January 2009.

Purpose

To compare the anterior and posterior elevation measurements above the best-fit sphere (BFS) between the Galilei (dual-Scheimpflug) and Pentacam (single-Scheimpflug) systems in candidates for refractive surgery.

Setting

Poostchi Ophthalmology Research Center, Shiraz, Iran.

Methods

In this prospective study, both eyes of consecutive patients were examined with the 2 imaging systems. The anterior and posterior BFS and the central and maximum elevation measurements in each of 4 quadrants were compared between the dual-Scheimpflug system and the single-Scheimpflug system. Bland-Altman plots were used to evaluate the agreement in the measurements between the imaging systems.

Results

The study comprised 31 patients (62 eyes). The mean radius of the anterior BFS measurement was 7.72 mm ± 0.21 (SD) with the dual-Scheimpflug system and 7.83 ± 0.21 mm with the single-Scheimpflug system. The mean radius of the posterior BFS was 6.37 ± 0.18 mm and 6.47 ± 0.19 mm, respectively. On the anterior and posterior elevation maps, the single-Scheimpflug system led to statistically significantly higher measurements than the dual-Scheimpflug system in the central, inferior, and temporal elevations (P<.001). Bland-Altman plots showed more agreement between the systems in anterior elevation measurements than in posterior elevation measurements.

Conclusion

In refractive surgery candidates with healthy eyes, the elevation map measurements with the single-Scheimpflug system were significantly different from those with the dual-Scheimpflug system in most aspects and therefore may lead to misinterpretation of clinical data that could alter clinical decisions if the 2 imaging systems are considered interchangeable.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

PII: S0886-3350(09)00103-5

doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.01.008

Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery
Volume 35, Issue 5 , Pages 856-862, May 2009