|
مقاله
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
Title:
|
Intrasubject Repeatability and Interdevice Agreement of Anterior Chamber Depth Measurements by Orbscan and Pentacam in Different Grades of Keratoconus
|
|
Author(s):
|
Hassan Hashemi, Mojgan Pakbin, Nooshin Dadbin, Amir Asharlous, Mohammad Aghazadeh Amiri, Abbasali Yekta, Shahroukh Ramin, Azadeh Taheri, Hadi ostadimoghaddam, Mehdi Khabazkhoob, Frida Jabbari-Azad
|
|
Presentation Type:
|
Oral
|
|
Subject:
|
Cornea and Anterior Segment
|
|
Others:
|
|
|
Presenting Author:
|
|
|
Name:
|
Mojgan Pakbin
|
|
Affiliation :(optional)
|
1- Noor Research Center for Ophthalmic Epidemiology, Noor Eye Hospital, Tehran, Iran. 2- Research and Technology Deputy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
|
|
E mail:
|
mpopto@yahoo.com
|
|
Phone:
|
|
|
Mobile:
|
09126127265
|
|
|
|
|
Purpose:
|
To evaluate the repeatability of anterior chamber depth (ACD) measurements by Orbscan and Pentacam imaging devices in different grades of keratoconus.
|
|
Methods:
|
One examiner performed 3 consecutive ACD measurements with both devices on 74 eyes of 42 keratoconus patient. Repeatability was assessed using intrasession test-retest variability. Within-subject SD was determined for repeatability, and the coefficient of variation was calculated for each measurement. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was also determined to assess the variance of repeated data.
|
|
Results:
|
Overall, the three ACD measurements were not significantly different either with Pentacam or Orbscan. The ICC index values were greater than 90% with both devices, and it significantly reduced at higher grades of keratoconus with Pentacam. Interdevice differences were statistically significant. The interdevice agreement with ACD measurements was 0.981, and the agreement was lower at higher grades of keratoconus. The 95% limits of agreement between the 2 devices for ACD was from -0.19 to 0.04.
|
|
Conclusion:
|
Our results indicate acceptable repeatability for ACD measurements with both Orbscan and Pentacam in keratoconus patients. The progression of keratoconus has no significant effect on repeatability results of these devices. The good agreement between them allows their interchangeable use.
|
|
Attachment:
|
|
|
|