Purpose: This study aimed to assess the agreement between topographic indices of healthy subjects and keratoconus (KCN) patients using a swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT CASIA2) versus a Scheimpflug camera (Pentacam).
Methods: 40 eyes of 23 patients with KCN and 40 eyes of 20 healthy subjects were included and evaluated with the CASIA2, followed by the Pentacam. Two consecutive modalities were obtained for one eye of each patient. Corneal parameters, including anterior keratometry at steep (Ks) and flat meridians (Kf), anterior astigmatism, anterior and posterior corneal elevation values, thinnest corneal thickness, and apex corneal thickness, were evaluated.
Results: CASIA2 and Pentacam showed perfect agreement (95% limits of agreement (LoA): -0.22 to 0.68, 95% LoA: -1.5 to 1.44 D) and good correlation (Intraclass correlation (ICC):0.986, ICC:0.987; to 0.68, 95% LoA: -1.5 to 1.44 D) and good correlation (Intraclass correlation (ICC):0.986, ICC:0.987; P <0.01) for anterior (Ks) in normal and ectatic corneas, respectively. The cylinder amount had moderate agreement and correlation (95% LoA: -0.55 to 0.47D, ICC: 0.797, P <0.01) in normal, and moderate to strong agreement and correlation (95% LoA: -1.57 to 0.87D, ICC=0.911, P <0.01) in Keratoconic eyes. There was a fair agreement for anterior and posterior corneal elevation values in normal subjects (95% LoA: -3.09 to 4.59, 95% LoA: -6.91 to 7.31D). The thinnest corneal thickness amount had an excellent agreement in normal and KCN patients (ICC: 0.983, 0.953; respectively).
Conclusions: Although the devices had different mean indices values, they had a good agreement based on the Bland–Altman plots. Since Pentacam is accepted as the standard tool for diagnosing ectatic cornea, pentacam CASIA2 is also helpful for early diagnosis of KCN.

2. Cavas-Martínez F, De la Cruz Sánchez E, Nieto Martínez J, Fernández Cañavate FJ, Fernández-Pacheco DG. Corneal topography in keratoconus: state of the art. Eye Vis (Lond). 2016;3:5.

3. Ziaei M, Barsam A, Shamie N, Vroman D, Kim T, Donnenfeld ED, et al.; ASCRS Cornea Clinical Committee. Reshaping procedures for the surgical management of corneal ectasia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41:842–872.

4. Jhanji V, Sharma N, Vajpayee RB. Management of keratoconus: current scenario. Br J Ophthalmol. 2011;95:1044–1050.

5. Rio-Cristobal A, Martin R. Corneal assessment technologies: current status. Surv Ophthalmol. 2014;59:599–614.

6. Chan TC, Biswas S, Yu M, Jhanji V. Comparison of corneal measurements in keratoconus using swept-source optical coherence tomography and combined Placido- Scheimpflug imaging. Acta Ophthalmol. 2017;95:e486– 494.

7. Ghoreishi SM, Mortazavi SA, Abtahi ZA, Abtahi MA, Sonbolestan SA, Abtahi SH, et al. Comparison of Scheimpflug and swept-source anterior segment optical coherence tomography in normal and keratoconus eyes. Int Ophthalmol. 2017;37:965–971.

8. Wegener A, Laser-Junga H. Photography of the anterior eye segment according to Scheimpflug’s principle: options and limitations - a review. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2009;37:144–154.

9. Fukuda S, Beheregaray S, Hoshi S, Yamanari M, Lim Y, Hiraoka T, et al. Comparison of three-dimensional optical coherence tomography and combining a rotating Scheimpflug camera with a Placido topography system for forme fruste keratoconus diagnosis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2013;97:1554–1559.

10. Szalai E, Berta A, Hassan Z, Módis L Jr. Reliability and repeatability of swept-source Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography and Scheimpflug imaging in keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38:485–494.

11. Lee YW, Choi CY, Yoon GY. Comparison of dual rotating Scheimpflug-Placido, swept-source optical coherence tomography, and Placido-scanning-slit systems. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41:1018–1029.

12. Konstantopoulos A, Hossain P, Anderson DF. Recent advances in ophthalmic anterior segment imaging: a new era for ophthalmic diagnosis? Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91:551–557.

13. Randleman JB, Woodward M, Lynn MJ, Stulting RD. Risk assessment for ectasia after corneal refractive surgery. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:37–50.

14. Brunner M, Czanner G, Vinciguerra R, Romano V, Ahmad S, Batterbury M, et al. Improving precision for detecting change in the shape of the cornea in patients with keratoconus. Sci Rep. 2018;8:12345.

15. Ishibazawa A, Igarashi S, Hanada K, Nagaoka T, Ishiko S, Ito H, et al. Central corneal thickness measurements with Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography versus ultrasonic pachymetry and rotating Scheimpflug camera. Cornea. 2011;30:615–619.

16. Jhanji V, Yang B, Yu M, Ye C, Leung CK. Corneal thickness and elevation measurements using swept-source optical coherence tomography and slit scanning topography in normal and keratoconic eyes. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013;41:735–745.

17. Qin B, Chen S, Brass R, Li Y, Tang M, Zhang X, et al. Keratoconus diagnosis with optical coherence tomography–based pachymetric scoring system. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39:1864–1871.

18. Miháltz K, Kovács I, Takács A, Nagy ZZ. Evaluation of keratometric, pachymetric, and elevation parameters of keratoconic corneas with pentacam. Cornea. 2009;28:976–980.