» Articles » PMID: 36604657

Comparison Between the CASIA SS-1000 and Pentacam in Measuring Corneal Curvatures and Corneal Thickness Maps

Overview
Journal BMC Ophthalmol
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Ophthalmology
Date 2023 Jan 5
PMID 36604657
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To compare the intra-device repeatability and inter-device reproducibility between two anterior segment imaging instruments, the CASIA SS-1000 (Tomey Corp., Nagoya, Japan) and Pentacam (OCULUS, Arlington, WA) in measuring anterior segment parameters.

Methods: Single-center, prospective clinical trial. Participants ≥20 years of age were included. One eye was randomly selected, each imaged by three CASIA SS-1000 devices and three Pentacam devices by three different examiners. Each photographer operated a pair of devices, one CASIA SS-1000 and one Pentacam. The image order for each participant was determined by a random permutation table. Three images were taken from each device. A total of 18 images were taken for each eye. Ratios of the standard deviations, referenced as (CASIA/Pentacam), were calculated to compare the repeatability and reproducibility of the two imaging instruments.

Results: In all, 66 participants with a mean age of 46.4 years (±21.7) were enrolled in the study. All repeatability ratios and intra-device variability were less than 1 (anterior corneal curvature: flat = 0.86, steep = 0.85; posterior corneal curvature: flat = 0.43, steep = 0.61; and map: thinnest = 0.22; central = 0.24, 2 mm = 0.26, 4 mm = 0.27, and 6 mm = 0.30). All reproducibility ratios, which measure the inter-device variability, were less than 1 (anterior corneal curvature: flat = 0.58, steep = 0.73; posterior corneal curvature: flat = 0.25, steep = 0.31; and pachymetry map: thinnest = 0.20; central = 0.20; 2 mm = 0.20; 4 mm = 0.19; and 6 mm = 0.22). A ratio of less than 1 indicates that the CASIA SS-1000 has more consistent measurements.

Conclusions: The CASIA SS-1000 was found to have better repeatability and reproducibility compared to the Pentacam for both corneal curvature and pachymetry maps. This greater consistency may require further study to determine whether the decreased variability can be translated into improved clinical results.

Citing Articles

Comparison of a Scheimpflug Camera and Optical Coherence Tomography in Evaluating Keratoconic Eyes Post Keratoplasty.

Gadamer A, Miklaszewski P, Janiszewska-Bil D, Lyssek-Boron A, Dobrowolski D, Wylegala E J Clin Med. 2025; 14(1.

PMID: 39797319 PMC: 11722208. DOI: 10.3390/jcm14010238.


Comparison of ocular biometric parameters between two swept-source optical coherence tomography devices and Scheimpflug tomography in patients with cataract.

Ma S, Li C, Sun J, Yang J, Wen K, Chen X Int J Ophthalmol. 2024; 17(8):1437-1446.

PMID: 39156774 PMC: 11286440. DOI: 10.18240/ijo.2024.08.08.


Inpainting Saturation Artifact in Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography.

Li J, Zhang H, Wang X, Wang H, Hao J, Bai G Sensors (Basel). 2023; 23(23).

PMID: 38067812 PMC: 10708580. DOI: 10.3390/s23239439.

References
1.
Amano S, Honda N, Amano Y, Yamagami S, Miyai T, Samejima T . Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by rotating Scheimpflug camera, ultrasonic pachymetry, and scanning-slit corneal topography. Ophthalmology. 2006; 113(6):937-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.01.063. View

2.
Rozema J, Wouters K, Mathysen D, Tassignon M . Overview of the repeatability, reproducibility, and agreement of the biometry values provided by various ophthalmic devices. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014; 158(6):1111-1120.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2014.08.014. View

3.
Chen S, Huang J, Wen D, Chen W, Huang D, Wang Q . Measurement of central corneal thickness by high-resolution Scheimpflug imaging, Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography and ultrasound pachymetry. Acta Ophthalmol. 2010; 90(5):449-55. DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2010.01947.x. View

4.
Munnerlyn C, Koons S, Marshall J . Photorefractive keratectomy: a technique for laser refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1988; 14(1):46-52. DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(88)80063-4. View

5.
Golan O, Hwang E, Lang P, Santhiago M, Abulafia A, Touboul D . Differences in Posterior Corneal Features Between Normal Corneas and Subclinical Keratoconus. J Refract Surg. 2018; 34(10):664-670. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20180823-02. View