Antalis J J, Lembach R G, Carney L G
Department of Ophthalmology, Ohio State University, Columbus.
CLAO J. 1993 Jan;19(1):58-63. doi: 10.1097/00140068-199301000-00011.
We used two computerized corneal topography instruments (EyeSys Laboratories' Corneal Analysis System and the Topographic Modeling System (TMS-1) from Computed Anatomy, Inc.] to evaluate 18 eyes (ten patients) with abnormal corneas. The diagnoses included keratoconus, corneal scars, and residual postoperative astigmatism following refractive surgery. The patients were randomly selected from a busy corneal practice to include those with significant corneal refractive error whose management, it was believed, would benefit from corneal topography imaging. Images were taken with both systems, and comparisons were made of the ease of operation, the accuracy of corneal readings, and the usefulness of generated data. Three millimeter zone (Corneal Analysis System) and Simulated Keratometry (TMS-1) values were also compared to each other and to standard keratometric readings. We found the two systems to be very similar in their application and results, although certain differences were apparent in terms of operation, patient acceptance, and the ability to obtain useful data from the more distorted corneas. Neither system worked ideally for severely irregular surfaces.
我们使用了两种电脑化角膜地形图仪(EyeSys实验室的角膜分析系统以及Computed Anatomy公司的地形建模系统(TMS - 1))来评估18只眼睛(10名患者)的异常角膜。诊断包括圆锥角膜、角膜瘢痕以及屈光手术后的残余散光。这些患者是从繁忙的角膜诊疗实践中随机选取的,包括那些有明显角膜屈光不正的患者,据信他们的治疗将受益于角膜地形图成像。用这两种系统拍摄图像,并对操作的简便性、角膜读数的准确性以及生成数据的有用性进行比较。还将3毫米区域(角膜分析系统)和模拟角膜曲率计(TMS - 1)的值相互比较,并与标准角膜曲率计读数进行比较。我们发现这两种系统在应用和结果方面非常相似,尽管在操作、患者接受度以及从更扭曲的角膜获取有用数据的能力方面存在某些明显差异。对于严重不规则的表面,两种系统都不能理想地工作。