Comparison of corneal reconstruction between CASIA2 and Pentacam: Impact on IOL power calculation

IF 1.8 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Iñaki Blanco-Martínez , Juan Queiruga-Piñeiro , Ignacio Rodríguez-Uña , Miguel Faria-Ribeiro , José Manuel González-Méijome
{"title":"Comparison of corneal reconstruction between CASIA2 and Pentacam: Impact on IOL power calculation","authors":"Iñaki Blanco-Martínez ,&nbsp;Juan Queiruga-Piñeiro ,&nbsp;Ignacio Rodríguez-Uña ,&nbsp;Miguel Faria-Ribeiro ,&nbsp;José Manuel González-Méijome","doi":"10.1016/j.optom.2025.100573","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>This research aims to comprehensively compare the outcomes of anterior segment optical coherence tomography (CASIA2) and Scheimpflug imaging (Pentacam) for computational reconstruction of the anterior and posterior corneal surfaces. A secondary objective is to evaluate their clinical relevance in estimating intraocular lens (IOL) power. Through this analysis, the distinct advantages of each technology are highlighted, providing insights into their complementary roles in enhancing ophthalmic modelling capabilities.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A total of 65 right eyes of 65 subjects (52 females and 13 males) with a mean age of 34 ± 8 years were studied across two separate sessions. Geometric parameters were extracted by fitting a biconic surface to the elevation maps obtained from both devices. Intra- and inter-session variability, as well as inter-device variability, were analyzed. Additionally, IOL power calculations were performed to evaluate the clinical applicability of each imaging system.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>For the anterior corneal surface, CASIA2 showed greater intra-session variability compared to Pentacam, whereas Pentacam demonstrated higher variability for the posterior surface. However, inter-session variability was similar for both devices on both surfaces.</div><div>Inter-device variability revealed close agreement for the anterior surface, while the posterior surface exhibited more variability. On the other hand, while IOL power calculations showed statistically significant differences (Δ = 0.35 D; <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001), these were not clinically significant.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Pentacam may offer greater precision in reconstructing the anterior corneal surface. However, its clinical impact on both anterior and posterior corneal surface reconstruction appears minimal, with both devices providing comparable results for IOL power calculations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":46407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Optometry","volume":"18 4","pages":"Article 100573"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Optometry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S188842962500038X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

This research aims to comprehensively compare the outcomes of anterior segment optical coherence tomography (CASIA2) and Scheimpflug imaging (Pentacam) for computational reconstruction of the anterior and posterior corneal surfaces. A secondary objective is to evaluate their clinical relevance in estimating intraocular lens (IOL) power. Through this analysis, the distinct advantages of each technology are highlighted, providing insights into their complementary roles in enhancing ophthalmic modelling capabilities.

Methods

A total of 65 right eyes of 65 subjects (52 females and 13 males) with a mean age of 34 ± 8 years were studied across two separate sessions. Geometric parameters were extracted by fitting a biconic surface to the elevation maps obtained from both devices. Intra- and inter-session variability, as well as inter-device variability, were analyzed. Additionally, IOL power calculations were performed to evaluate the clinical applicability of each imaging system.

Results

For the anterior corneal surface, CASIA2 showed greater intra-session variability compared to Pentacam, whereas Pentacam demonstrated higher variability for the posterior surface. However, inter-session variability was similar for both devices on both surfaces.
Inter-device variability revealed close agreement for the anterior surface, while the posterior surface exhibited more variability. On the other hand, while IOL power calculations showed statistically significant differences (Δ = 0.35 D; p < 0.001), these were not clinically significant.

Conclusions

Pentacam may offer greater precision in reconstructing the anterior corneal surface. However, its clinical impact on both anterior and posterior corneal surface reconstruction appears minimal, with both devices providing comparable results for IOL power calculations.
CASIA2与Pentacam角膜重建的比较:对IOL度数计算的影响
目的综合比较前段光学相干断层扫描(CASIA2)和Scheimpflug成像(Pentacam)对角膜前后表面的计算重建效果。第二个目的是评估它们在估计人工晶状体(IOL)度数方面的临床意义。通过这一分析,突出了每种技术的独特优势,并提供了它们在增强眼科建模能力方面的互补作用的见解。方法对65名平均年龄34±8岁的受试者(女性52人,男性13人)的65只右眼进行两期研究。几何参数的提取是通过拟合双曲面对两个设备获得的高程图。分析了会话内和会话间的可变性以及设备间的可变性。此外,进行人工晶状体度数计算以评估各成像系统的临床适用性。与Pentacam相比,CASIA2在角膜前表面表现出更大的治疗过程内变异性,而Pentacam在角膜后表面表现出更高的变异性。然而,两种设备在两个表面上的会话间变异性是相似的。器械间的可变性显示前表面的一致性,而后表面表现出更多的可变性。另一方面,人工晶状体度数计算差异有统计学意义(Δ = 0.35 D;p & lt;0.001),这些没有临床意义。结论spentacam在角膜前表面重建中具有较高的精度。然而,它对前、后角膜表面重建的临床影响似乎很小,两种设备在人工晶状体度数计算方面的结果相当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Optometry
Journal of Optometry OPHTHALMOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
60
审稿时长
66 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信