Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Comparative Evaluation of Topographic Parameters Using Three Different Topographers in Keratoconic and Cross-linked Keratoconic Corneas.

PURPOSE: To compare the parameters of three different topographic devices (Pentacam HR, Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH; Sirius, Costruzione Strumenti Oftalmici; and Cassini, i-Optics) in grading the severity of keratoconus in cross-linked and non-cross-linked eyes.

METHODS: This was a prospective comparative interventional study done in a tertiary eye care center, wherein 114 eyes of 68 patients with keratoconus were divided into two groups: 62 eyes that were observed and 52 eyes that were cross-linked. All eyes were evaluated on all three topographers at baseline, 3-month follow-up, and 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS: The Sirius showed significantly lower values of mean flat keratometry in comparison to the Pentacam HR (limits of agreement [LoA]: 1.75 to 3.51%) and Cassini (LoA: 1.75 to 3.51%). The mean steep keratometry values were higher for the Cassini in comparison to the Pentacam HR (LoA: 4.39 to 7.02%) and Sirius (LoA: 3.51 to 6.14%). The mean steep keratometry values of the Sirius were significantly lower than those of the Pentacam HR and in both the cross-linked and observation groups (LoA: 3.51 to 6.14%). The mean keratometry values were significantly higher in the Cassini compared to the Pentacam HR (LoA: 3.51 to 8.77%) and significantly lower in the Sirius in comparison to the Pentacam HR (LoA: 3.51 to 6.14%). The mean difference in astigmatism was also statistically significant between the three tomographers in both groups, with the Cassini showing higher values (LoA: 3.51 to 5.26%) and the Sirius lower values than the Pentacam HR (LoA: 5.26 to 6.14%).

CONCLUSIONS: The authors conclude the three devices cannot be used interchangeably. The Cassini showed better agreement and correlation with the Pentacam HR in the staging of keratoconus, whereas the Sirius tended to underdiagnose and under-stage the disease. [ J Refract Surg . 2024;40(4):e260-e269.] .

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app