Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the ability of Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) to differentiate between normal and abnormal corneas as compared to Sirius corneal topography. Methods: This retrospective study included 302 eyes of 151 patients. All patients underwent evaluation with ORA and Sirius corneal topography. Parameters included disease classification results on both instruments (device software classification), Surface asymmetry index (SAI) on Sirius, Corneal Hysteresis (CH), Corneal Resistant Factor (CRF), Keratoconus Match Index (KMI), Goldmann-correlated intraocular pressure (IOPg), Corneal compensated intraocular pressure (IOPcc) and waveform score (WS) on ORA. Results: On Sirius, 198 eyes (65.6%) were classified as normal. On ORA, 121 eyes (40.1%) were documented as normal. Overall, 105 eyes (34.8%) were classified as normal and 88 eyes (29.1%) with non-normal classification on both Sirius and ORA. Of the 198 eyes classified as normal on Sirius, 53% were classified as normal, 39% as suspect and 8% as mild keratoconus on ORA (47% non-normal). Of the 121 eyes classified as normal on ORA, 87% were classified as normal, 6% as suspect, and 2% as keratoconus compatible on Sirius (13% non-normal). Four percent of the eyes classified as keratoconus compatible on Sirius were classified as normal on ORA. There was a significant difference when comparing normal and non-normal classifications between ORA and Sirius (p < 0.001) with poor agreement (Kappa=0.32). When including only normal and Keratoconus eyes in the analysis, good agreement was found between the two machines (Kappa=0.75). Conclusion: According to our results there seems to be a significant difference between ORA and Sirius in their ability to differentiate between normal and non-normal eyes. As such, we recommend that these devices not to be used interchangeably for assessing patients prior to refractive surgery. Keywords: Cornea; Corneal biomechanics; Keratoconus; Ocular response analyzer; Sirius corneal topo
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: Indian Journal of Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.