comparative analysis of three methods for diagnosing the structures of the anterior chamber of the eye was carried out: CASIA 2 (anterior segment optical coherence tomography), UBM (ultrasound biomicroscopy) and Pentacam (corneal topography based on a rotating Scheimpflug camera). Their accuracy, diagnostic capabilities and clinical significance in identifying pathologies of the anterior segment of the eye were assessed. The results of the study allow us to determine the optimal areas of application of each method in ophthalmological practice. Objective of the study Compare the diagnostic efficiency of CASIA 2, UBM and Pentacam in visualizing the structures of the anterior chamber of the eye (cornea, anterior chamber angle, lens, iris), evaluate their accuracy, resolution and clinical applicability in various diseases (glaucoma, cataract, keratoconus, etc.). Results Corneal and lens density measurements, as well as anterior chamber parameters, showed a high degree of correlation between CASIA2, Pentacam, and UBM. However, systematic differences between the devices were noted, especially in the periphery, which excludes their interchangeability. CASIA2 provided the highest reproducibility and demonstrated overestimated vault values after IOL implantation. Significant differences were also found in the calculation of angle-to-angle (ATA) distance, especially in conditions of astigmatism and peripheral measurements. Conclusion The conducted meta-analysis shows that although CASIA2, Pentacam, and UBM demonstrate high reproducibility and correlation of results in assessing the anterior segment of the eye, they are not interchangeable. Systematic differences in measurements, especially in the periphery or after surgical interventions, require the use of the same device for long-term patient monitoring. CASIA2 stands out for its high accuracy and reproducibility, especially in conditions requiring three-dimensional assessment of structures. However, in cases with clouding of the optical media or the need to evaluate the ciliary body, the advantage remains with UBM. Pentacam remains a convenient tool for routine screening due to its availability and non-contact nature, but has limitations in the analysis of peripheral structures.
Younes et al. (Fri,) studied this question.