About MEAJO | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions to authors | Online submission | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact | Login 
Middle East African Journal of Ophthalmology Middle East African Journal of Ophthalmology
Users Online: 395   Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
CORNEA/REFRACTIVE UPDATE
Year : 2010  |  Volume : 17  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 44-55

Day to day clinically relevant corneal elevation, thickness, and curvature parameters using the orbscan II scanning slit topographer and the pentacam scheimpflug imaging device


1 Noor Ophthalmology Research Center, Noor Eye Hospital & Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2 Noor Ophthalmology Research Center, Noor Eye Hospital, Tehran, Iran

Correspondence Address:
Hassan Hashemi
Noor Ophthalmology Research Center, 96 Esfandiar Blvd, Vali'asr Ave, Tehran, 19686
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0974-9233.61216

Rights and Permissions

The introduction of different techniques and computerized devices into clinical ophthalmology has significantly improved our knowledge of the eyes, optics, and eye conditions. Today, corneal topography is performed with a wide range of devices that implement a variety of techniques. Advance computerized analysis systems provide us with simple and quick evaluation procedures, yet the sophisticated data and clinical information that is generated can only be interpreted with adequate knowledge of the system itself as well as the accepted normal ranges of various properties assessed with these systems. Two computerized topography systems that are in common use are the Orbscan (Bausch and Lomb Inc., Rochester, NY, USA) and the Pentacam (Oculus GmBH, Wetzlar, Germany). The Orbscan is a slit-scanning device and the Pentacam is Scheimpflug imaging device. In this review, we present a brief description of both technologies, the techniques implemented in each device and the acquisition process with each. This will be followed by a list of corneal parameters that need to be assessed in screening patients for refractive surgery. We will discuss how these parameters are displayed, how each parameter may serve as clinic criteria, and how data should be interpreted. We will also try to provide evidence regarding the accuracy of different measurements, and the comparability of the two devices.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed5230    
    Printed268    
    Emailed4    
    PDF Downloaded648    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal