BACKGROUND: White-to-white corneal measurement is used frequently in cataract and refractive surgery as well as in diagnosing various corneal diseases and monitoring congenital glaucoma. In this article, we determine agreement in horizontal corneal diameter measurements in normal eyes among the Galilei V4.01, the EyeSys and the Orbscan IIz. METHODS: In this prospective study, 37 consecutive volunteers were enrolled. All 74 eyes were measured with all three devices. Galilei, EyeSys and Orbscan II measurements were compared with one another. In addition, the data from the right and left eyes were compared for each device. RESULTS: The mean horizontal corneal diameter measurements with the Galilei, the EyeSys and the Orbscan II were 12.01 +/- 0.61 mm, 12.09 +/- 0.87 mm and 11.67 +/- 0.29 mm, respectively. The difference between the Galilei and EyeSys systems was not statistically significant (p = 0.76), however, the Orbscan II showed smaller measurements (p < 0.001). The best 95% limits of agreement between devices were for the Galilei and the Orbscan II (-0.72, 1.48; r = 0.4, p < 0.01). The best 95% limits of agreement between two eyes for each device were found with the Orbscan II (-0.15, 0.17; r = 0.996, p < 0.01). There was no correlation between measurements of right and left eyes for the Galilei or the EyeSys (r = 0.274, p = 0.176 and r = 0.31, p = 0.065, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that measurements made with the Orbscan II are smaller than those obtained with the EyeSys Corneal Analysis system and the Galilei. Among the three devices, the Galilei and the Orbscan II showed the best agreement, however, it is inadvisable to use the three devices interchangeably in every clinical situation.
BACKGROUND: White-to-white corneal measurement is used frequently in cataract and refractive surgery as well as in diagnosing various corneal diseases and monitoring congenital glaucoma. In this article, we determine agreement in horizontal corneal diameter measurements in normal eyes among the Galilei V4.01, the EyeSys and the Orbscan IIz. METHODS: In this prospective study, 37 consecutive volunteers were enrolled. All 74 eyes were measured with all three devices. Galilei, EyeSys and Orbscan II measurements were compared with one another. In addition, the data from the right and left eyes were compared for each device. RESULTS: The mean horizontal corneal diameter measurements with the Galilei, the EyeSys and the Orbscan II were 12.01 +/- 0.61 mm, 12.09 +/- 0.87 mm and 11.67 +/- 0.29 mm, respectively. The difference between the Galilei and EyeSys systems was not statistically significant (p = 0.76), however, the Orbscan II showed smaller measurements (p < 0.001). The best 95% limits of agreement between devices were for the Galilei and the Orbscan II (-0.72, 1.48; r = 0.4, p < 0.01). The best 95% limits of agreement between two eyes for each device were found with the Orbscan II (-0.15, 0.17; r = 0.996, p < 0.01). There was no correlation between measurements of right and left eyes for the Galilei or the EyeSys (r = 0.274, p = 0.176 and r = 0.31, p = 0.065, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that measurements made with the Orbscan II are smaller than those obtained with the EyeSys Corneal Analysis system and the Galilei. Among the three devices, the Galilei and the Orbscan II showed the best agreement, however, it is inadvisable to use the three devices interchangeably in every clinical situation.
Authors: Alberto Domínguez-Vicent; Cari Pérez-Vives; Teresa Ferrer-Blasco; Santiago García-Lázaro; Robert Montés-Micó Journal: Int J Ophthalmol Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 1.779
Authors: Felix H W Mak; Anthony Harker; Kyung-Ah Kwon; Mohan Edirisinghe; Geoffrey E Rose; Fabiola Murta; Daniel G Ezra Journal: J R Soc Interface Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 4.118
Authors: Hassan Hashemi; Mehdi Khabazkhoob; Mohammad Hassan Emamian; Mohammad Shariati; Abbasali Yekta; Akbar Fotouhi Journal: J Curr Ophthalmol Date: 2015-10-19
Authors: Ahmed Abass; Bernardo T Lopes; Ashkan Eliasy; Richard Wu; Steve Jones; John Clamp; Renato Ambrósio; Ahmed Elsheikh Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: JoaquIn Fernández; Manuel Rodríguez-Vallejo; Javier Martínez; Ana Tauste; Elisa Hueso; David P Piñero Journal: Indian J Ophthalmol Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 1.848