Agreement Between Corneal Topography with the Dual-Scheimpflug Placido Corneal Topographer, Scheimpflug Corneal Topographer, and Scanning-Slit Topography in

Keratoconus: Implications for Assessing Progression

Pravin K Vaddavalli MD, Shyamsunder T, Parthasarthy K, Preetam Kumar, Shrikant D, Preeji MS, Reekham S, Faiza S

Cornea Service, Contact lens service

LV Prasad Eye Institute

Hyderabad, India

None of the authors has any financial interests or conflict of interest to disclose

Purpose

• To assess the repeatability of the Orbscan, Pentacam and Galilei topography systems in normal and keratoconus eyes

• To assess the agreement between these three topography machines in assessing normal and keratoconus eyes

PENTACAM GALILEIORBSCAN

Methods• 96 right eyes on normal patients• 45 clinically diagnosed keratoconus• 2 scans each on Orbscan, Pentacam and Galilei• Intersession variability, instrument agreement

ORBSCAN PENTACAM GALILEI

NORMALS NORMALS NORMALS

KERATOCONUS KERATOCONUS KERATOCONUS

INTE

RSES

SIO

N R

EPEA

TABI

LITY

(M

AX/S

TEEP

KER

ATO

MET

RY)

NORMALS NORMALS NORMALS

KERATOCONUS

PENTACAM vs GALILEI

KERATOCONUS

ORBSCAN vs PENTACAM ORBSCAN vs GALILEI

KERATOCONUS

INTE

R IN

STRU

MEN

T RE

PEAT

ABIL

ITY

(MAX

/STE

EP K

ERAT

OM

ETRY

)

SUMMARY

• Normals – Pentacam had least intersession variability

• Keratoconus eyes – all topographers showed greater

intersession variation compared to normals, Galilei was best

• Between instruments, Pentacam and Galilei had the highest

agreement in both normals and keratoconus eyes