International Journal of Keratoconus and Ectatic Corneal Diseases

Register      Login

VOLUME 1 , ISSUE 1 ( January-April, 2012 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparison of Placido, Scheimpflug and Combined Dual Scheimpflug-Placido Technologies in Evaluating Anterior and Posterior CLMI, SimK's as well as Kmax, in Keratoconic and Postrefractive Surgery Ectasia

Thomas F Mauger, Ashraf M Mahmoud, Cynthia J Roberts, Lena V Chheda, Rebecca A Kuennen, Andrew J Hendershot, Richard G Lembach

Citation Information : Mauger TF, Mahmoud AM, Roberts CJ, Chheda LV, Kuennen RA, Hendershot AJ, Lembach RG. Comparison of Placido, Scheimpflug and Combined Dual Scheimpflug-Placido Technologies in Evaluating Anterior and Posterior CLMI, SimK's as well as Kmax, in Keratoconic and Postrefractive Surgery Ectasia. Int J Kerat Ect Cor Dis 2012; 1 (1):44-52.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10025-1008

Published Online: 00-04-2012

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2012; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Purpose

To calculate and compare cone location and magnitude index (CLMI), Kmax and other corneal measures derived from three different technologies, Placido, Scheimpflug, and a combination dual Scheimpflug-Placido device, from the same group of eyes with keratoconus and postrefractive surgery corneal ectasia.

Methods

Keratoconus (n = 26) eyes of (n = 19) subjects and postrefractive surgery ectasia (n = 5) eyes of (n = 5) subjects were selected to have measurements performed using the Keratron Scout, Pentacam HR and Galilei Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer. Device-generated SimK's and device-specific CLMI and Kmax indices as well as map data, were exported from each device. Index values for multiple exams were averaged. The map data were processed using The Ohio State University Corneal Topography Tool (OSUCTT) to calculate CLMI parameters, Kmax and SimK values using consistent algorithms on all three devices. Maps were averaged before calculation for multiple examinations. Repeated measures analysis of variance and post- hoc analysis were used to identify differences between devices.

Results

The anterior axial CLMI calculated from the Keratron data was significantly higher than CLMI for the Galilei (p = 0.0443) or Pentacam (p < 0.0004) with keratoconus, 12.23 compared with 11.20 and 11.00 diopters, respectively. Kmax was also significantly higher in the Keratron than the Galilei (p = 0.0063) or the Pentacam (p < 0.0002). Galilei and Pentacam were not significantly different from each other in either CLMI (p = 0.6287) or Kmax (p = 0.2115). The anterior CLMI values for the postrefractive surgery ectasia eyes were not significantly different between devices. Posterior CLMI values were calculated from the Galilei and Pentacam data and were −2.60 and −2.46 diopters (p = 0.1173) for keratoconus and −2.66 and −3.04 diopters (p = 0.2242) for postrefractive surgery ectasia.

Conclusion

The small cone Placido measured dioptric values that were greater than the pure Scheimpflug system, but the difference was only about 1 diopter, which is not relevant clinically in evaluating and managing ectasia. The combined dual Scheimpflug-Placido system produced measured dioptric values between the other two technologies. The anterior CLMI calculations accurately predicted keratoconus with all three devices. The posterior CLMI in ectasia may be a potentially valuable calculation in demonstrating asymmetric steepening.

How to cite this article

Mauger TF, Mahmoud AM, Roberts CJ, Chheda LV, Kuennen RA, Hendershot AJ, Lembach RG. Comparison of Placido, Scheimpflug and Combined Dual Scheimpflug-Placido Technologies in Evaluating Anterior and Posterior CLMI, SimK's as well as Kmax, in Keratoconic and Postrefractive Surgery Ectasia. Int J Keratoco Ectatic Corneal Dis 2012;1(1):44-52.

• C Roberts is a Consultant for Oculus Optikgerate GmbH and Ziemer Ophthalmic Systems AG, and has an interest in the GALILEI.

• A Mahmoud has an interest in the GALILEI.

• T Mauger, L Chheda, R Kuennen, A Hendershot, and R Lembach have no financial interests.


PDF Share
  1. Keratoconus and related noninflammatory corneal thinning disorders. Surv Ophthal 1984;28:293-322.
  2. What's in a name? Keratoconus, Pellucid marginal degeneration and related thinning disorders. Am J Ophthalmol 2011;152:157-62.
  3. Keratoconus: It is hard to define, but …. Am J Ophthalmol 2007;143:500-03.
  4. Characteristics of corneal ectasia after LASIK for myopia. Cornea 2004;23:447-57.
  5. Iatrogenic keratectasia after LASIK in a case of forme frusta keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg 1998;24:1007-09.
  6. Risk factors and prognosis for corneal ectasia after LASIK. Ophthalmology 2003;110:267-75.
  7. Keratoconus and corneal ectasia after LASIK. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005;35: 2035-38.
  8. Automated keratoconus screening with corneal topography analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1994;35:2749-57.
  9. Neural network classification of corneal topography. Preliminary demonstration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1995;36:1327-35.
  10. Videokeratographic indices to aid in screening for keratoconus. J Refract Surg 1995;11:371-79.
  11. Comparison of anterior segment measurements by 3 Scheimpflug tomographers and 1 Placido corneal topographer. J Cataract Refract Surg 2011;37:1679-85.
  12. The Ohio State University Corneal Topography Tool. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000;41:S677.
  13. The cone location and magnitude index (CLMI). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001;42:S4828.
  14. CLEK study group. CLMI the cone location and magnitude index. Cornea 2008;27:480-87.
  15. Simulation of machine-specific topographic indices for use across platforms. Optom Vis Sci 2006;83:682-93.
  16. Quantitative evaluation of irregular astigmatism by Fourier series harmonic analysis of videokeratography data. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1998; 39:705-09.
  17. Automated decision tree classification of corneal shape. Optometry and Vision Science, December 2005; 82(12):1038-46.
  18. Device-independent statistical indexes in corneal topography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004;45 E-abstract 2874.
  19. KISA% index: A quantitative videokeratography algorithm embodying minimal topographic criteria for diagnosing keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg 1999;25:1327-35.
  20. A comprehensive evaluation of the precision (repeatability and reproducibility) of the Oculus Pentacam HR. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2011;52(10):7731-37.
  21. Anterior segment biometry with the Pentacam: Comprehensive assessment of repeatability of automated measurements. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2008;34(1):103-13.
  22. Repeatability and reproducibility of corneal curvature measurements using the Pentacam and Keratron topography systems. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2009;25(6):539-44.
  23. Comparison and reproducibility of corneal thickness and curvature readings obtained by the Galilei and the Orbscan II analysis systems. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2008;34(10):1742-47.
  24. Repeatability of automatic measurements performed by a dual Scheimpflug analyzer in unoperated and postrefractive surgery eyes. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2011;37(2):302-09.
  25. Assessment of radial aspheres by the Arc-step algorithm as implemented by the Keratron keratoscope. American Journal of Ophthalmology 1995;120(5):658-64.
  26. Intraoperative and postoperative effects of corneal collagen cross-linking on progressive keratoconus. Arch Ophthalmol Oct 2009;127(10):1258-65.
  27. Cautions regarding measurement of the posterior corneal curvature. Ophthalmology 2000;107:1223.
  28. Changes in anterior and posterior corneal curvatures in keratoconus. Ophthalmology 2000;107:1328-32.
  29. Intraobserver and interobserver repeatability of curvature and aberrometric measurements of the posterior corneal surface in normal eyes using Scheimpflug photography. J Cataract Refract Surg. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009; 35:113-20.
  30. Identifying progression of subclinical keratoconus by serial topography analysis. Am J Ophthalmol 1991;112:41-45.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.