Comparison between Pentacam HR and Orbscan II after Hyperopic Photorefractive Keratectomy

Purpose:

The aim of this study was to determine the agreement between Pentacam HR (Scheimpflug imaging, Oculus) and Orbscan II (scanning slit topography, Bausch and Lomb) in measuring corneal parameters after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for hyperopia.

Methods:

In this prospective cross-sectional study, 38 hyperopic eyes undergoing PRK were examined before refractive surgery and 8 to 10 months postoperatively using Pentacam HR and Orbscan II. Ultrasound (US) pachymetry was also used to measure central corneal thickness (CCT). The radius of anterior (A-) and posterior (P-) best-fit sphere size (BFS), central elevation (CE), and anterior maximum tangential power in 3 mm (TG3) and 3-5 mm (TG5) zones, anterior chamber depth (ACD), and central corneal thickness (CCT) were collected and used in the analyses. To study the agreement between the measurements made by the two devices, the method described by Bland and Altman was used and the 95% limits of agreement were calculated.

Results:

The 95% limits of agreement show reasonable agreement between the measurements by Pentacam HR and Orbscan II for A-BFS, P-BFS, A-TG3, and CCT, but not for A-CE, P-CE, A-TG5, or ACD. CCT values obtained by both Pentacam HR and Orbscan II correlated well with the values determined by US pachymetry.

Conclusion:

Pentacam HR and Orbscan II after PRK for hyperopia show reasonable agreement for determining A-BFS, P-BFS, A-TG3, and CCT, but not for A-CE, P-CE, A-TG5, or ACD. CCT measurements with Pentacam HR have reasonable agreement with US pachymetry.

Corneal hysteresis and corneal resistance factor in pellucid marginal degeneration

Purpose

To evaluate and compare corneal hysteresis (CH) and corneal resistance factor (CRF) in pellucid marginal degeneration (PMD), keratoconus (KCN), and normal eyes using the Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA).

Methods

In this retrospective study, corneal biomechanical parameters were measured in patients with PMD (n = 102) and KCN (n = 202) and normal subjects (n = 208) using the ORA. Data, including full patient history as well as the results of refraction, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, Pentacam HR (Oculus), and ORA (Reichert; Buffalo, New York, USA), were collected from medical records. Also, the data of only one eye per individual were selected for the analysis. The inclusion criteria for PMD and KCN groups were a reliable diagnosis of these ectatic disorders based on the clinical and corneal tomographic findings. CH, CRF, CH–CRF, intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements were assessed for each subject. Data were analyzed with SPSS and MedCalc using the ANOVA, Pearson Correlation, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

Results

The mean CH was 8.91 mmHg ± 1.05 [standard deviation (SD)], 8.43 ± 0.78, and 10.89 ± 1.08 in the PMD, KCN, and normal group, respectively. Also, the mean CRF was 8.21 ± 1.35, 7.19 ± 1.11, and 10.69 ± 1.41 in the PMD, KCN, and normal group, respectively. ANOVA showed differences in the mean CH, CRF, and CH–CRF between three groups (P < 0.001). Also, ROC curve analysis showed the cut-off points ≤9.5, ≤9.5, and >1.3 mmHg for CH, CRF, and CH–CRF in the PMD group, respectively. For biomechanical parameters in PMD eyes, CRF had the highest sensitivity (75.49%) while the greatest area under the ROC curve (AUC) was seen for CH (0.903). Moreover, central corneal thickness (CCT) showed no correlation with CH (P = 0.30, r = −0.104) or CRF (P = 0.75, r = 0.033) in the PMD group.

Conclusions

This study presented the values of corneal biomechanics for PMD using the ORA. The results of the ORA were markedly different between PMD, KCN, and normal eyes.