• Indexing List

Indian Journal of Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology


Ocular response analyzer (ORA) derived parameters compared to Sirius corneal topography in analyzing corneal pathology


Full Text PDF Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


Author Details: Tania Ayad Baban, Fady Kamal Sammouh, Haitham Muhidine El Ballouz, Elias Lutfalla Warrak

Volume : 2

Issue : 3

Online ISSN : 2395-1451

Print ISSN : 2395-1443

Article First Page : 169

Article End Page : 173


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 topography