These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Dual versus single Scheimpflug camera for anterior segment analysis: Precision and agreement.
    Author: Aramberri J, Araiz L, Garcia A, Illarramendi I, Olmos J, Oyanarte I, Romay A, Vigara I.
    Journal: J Cataract Refract Surg; 2012 Nov; 38(11):1934-49. PubMed ID: 22995705.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To assess the repeatability, reproducibility, and agreement of the Pentacam HR single-camera and Galilei G2 dual-camera Scheimpflug devices in anterior segment analysis. SETTING: Begitek Clínica Oftalmológica, San Sebastián, Spain. DESIGN: Prospective randomized observational study. METHODS: Healthy young individuals had 3 consecutive tests by 2 examiners. Analyzed parameters were anterior and posterior cornea simulated keratometry (K), K flat, K steep, astigmatism magnitude and axis, J(0) and J(45) vectors, asphericity, total corneal higher-order wavefront aberrations (root mean square [RMS], coma, trefoil, spherical aberration), central cornea and thinnest-point thicknesses, and anterior chamber depth. Repeatability and reproducibility were evaluated by calculating the within-subject standard deviation (S(w)), some derived coefficients, and the intraclass correlation coefficient. Agreement was assessed with the Bland-Altman method. RESULTS: The single-camera device reproducibility (S(w)) was simulated K, 0.04 diopter (D); J(0), 0.03 D; J(45), 0.04 D; total power, 0.04 D; spherical aberration, 0.02 μm; higher-order aberrations (HOAs), 0.02 μm; central corneal thickness (CCT), 3.39 μm. The dual-camera device S(w) was simulated K, 0.07 D; J(0), 0.13 D; J(45), 0.04 D; total power, 0.08 D; spherical aberration, 0.02 μm; HOAs, 0.11 μm; CCT, 1.36 μm. Agreement was good for most parameters except total corneal power (mean difference 1.58 D ± 0.22 (SD) and HOA RMS (mean difference 0.48 ± 0.19 μm) (both P<.00). CONCLUSIONS: Repeatability and reproducibility were good for all parameters. The single-camera device was more precise for curvature, astigmatism, and corneal wavefront error measurements and the dual-camera device for pachymetry measurements. Agreement was good with some relevant exceptions. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: Dr. Aramberri is consultant to Costruzione Strumenti Oftalmici, Firenze, Italy. No other author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]