International Ophthalmology

, Volume 38, Issue 6, pp 2519–2526 | Cite as

Topographic indices and pachymetry in healthy adolescents obtained with Sirius topographer

  • Emilia Cantera
  • Magdalena CortesEmail author
  • Roberto Sacco
  • Gabriele Vestri
  • Alessandra Micera
Original Paper



To determine the normal values for the Sirius corneal topography, of some topographic indices and corneal pachymetry, in a healthy young adolescent population.


A total of 176 students (mean age 12.95 ± 0.82 years) took part in this study. 352 eyes were imaged through Sirius topographer. Anterior and posterior meridians, mean pupillary power, central corneal thickness, minimum corneal thickness, and anterior and posterior asymmetry indices were analyzed. Correlations between corneal parameters and differences between anterior and posterior corneal surfaces were evaluated.


Average anterior meridian was 43.37 D (± 1.46); average posterior meridian was 6.16 D (± 0.24); central corneal thickness was 550.81 ± 29.88 micron, minimum corneal thickness was 547.36 ± 29.93 micron; mean pupillary power was 42.95 ± 1.46 D, SIf was − 0.035 ± 0.46, and SIb was 0.012 ± 0.091. Anterior and posterior corneal curvatures correlated negatively with MPP (r = − 0.99; p = 0.000 and r = − 0.85 p = 0.000, respectively). Anterior curvature correlated positively with posterior curvature (r = 0.891; p = 0.000). Positive correlations were found for SIf and SIb (r = 0.58; p = 0.000). Negative correlations were found for SIf and corneal pachymetry (r = − 0.23; p = 0.000) and for SIb and corneal pachymetry (r = − 0.19; p = 0.012). The difference between anterior meridian average and posterior meridian average was 1.29 ± 0.12 and was significative (p < 0.001). No differences between genders were found.


These results provide normal standards for corneal values in adolescents and could represent a useful tool for future comparative studies in this age-group population.


Corneal topography Sirius topographer Adolescents Topography indices 



We are grateful to Dr. Ruth Dureghello (President of the Jewish Community of Rome) for allowing us to carry out this observational study and Prof. Angelo Sacerdoti (Middle School Director), Rav Prof. Benedetto Carucci (High School Director), and all the assistant personnel that collaborated on this observational study.


MC and AM were supported by the Italian Ministry of Health and Fondazione Roma. Fondazione Roma and Italian Ministry of Health provided financial support in the form of, respectively, intramural (Fondazione Roma) and current research (MoH) funding. The sponsor had no role in the design or conduct of this research.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

EC, MC, RS, and AM certified that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria, educational grants, participation in speakers’ bureaus, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, and expert testimony of patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. Gabriele Vestri is a CSO employee. He declares no fees for the present study.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional Review Board of the Israelitic Hospital of Rome and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Hussein MA, Paysse EA, Bell NP et al (2004) Corneal thickness in children. Am J Ophthalmol 138:744–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Muir KW, Jin J, Freedman SF (2004) Central corneal thickness and its relationship to intraocular pressure in children. Ophthalmology 111:2220–2223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davis WR, Raasch TW, Mitchell GL et al (2005) Corneal asphericity and apical curvature in children: a cross-sectional and longitudinal evaluation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 46:1899–1906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dai E, Gunderson CA (2006) Pediatric central corneal thickness variation among major ethnic populations. J AAPOS 10:22–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rüfer F, Schröder A, Bader C et al (2007) Age-related changes in central and peripheral corneal thickness: determination of normal values with the Orbscan II topography system. Cornea 26:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zheng Y, Huang G, Huang W et al (2008) Distribution of central and peripheral corneal thickness in Chinese children and adults: the Guangzhou twin eye study. Cornea 27:776–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ueno Y, Hiraoka T, Miyazaki M et al (2015) Corneal thickness profile and posterior corneal astigmatism in normal corneas. Ophthalmology 122:1072–1078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Feder RS, Neems LC (2017) Non inflammatory ectatic disordes. Chapter 72. In: Mannis MJ, Holland EJ (eds) Cornea fundamentals, diagnosis and management (e-book), vol 4. Elsevier, New York, p 821Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Anayol MA, Guler E, Yagci R et al (2014) Comparison of central corneal thickness, thinnest corneal thickness, anterior chamber depth, and simulated keratometry using Galilei, Pentacam, and Sirius devices. Cornea 33:582–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rabinowitz YS (2007) Diagnosing keratoconus and patients at risk. Cat Refract Surg Today. 2007 May.
  11. 11.
    Assiri AA, Yousuf BI, Quantock AJ et al (2005) Incidence and severity of keratoconus in Asir province Saudi Arabia. Br J Ophthalmol 89:1403–1406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Plugfelder SC, Liu Z, Feuer W et al (2002) Corneal thickness indices discriminate between keratoconus and contact lens induced corneal thinning. Ophthalmology 109:2336–2341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rufer F, Schroder A, Arvani MK et al (2005) Central and peripheral corneal pachimetry—standard evaluation with the Pentacam system. Klin Monatshl Augenheikd 222:117–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fakhry MA, Artola A, Belda JI et al (2002) Comparison of corneal pachymetry using ultrasound and OrbscanII. J Cataract Refract Surg 28:248–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huang J, Lu W, Savini G et al (2013) Evaluation of corneal thickness using a Scheimpflug-Placido disk corneal analyzer and comparison with ultrasound pachimetry in eyes after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 39:1074–1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    De la Parra-Colín P, Garza-León M, Barrientos-Gutierrez T (2014) Repeatability and comparability of anterior segment biometry obtained by the Sirius and the Pentacam analyzers. Int Ophthalmol 34:27–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gharaee H, Abrishami M, Abrishami M et al (2014) Anterior and posterior corneal curvature: normal values in healthy Iranian population obtained with th Orbscan II. Int Ophthalmol 34:1213–1219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Armstrong RA (2013) Statistical guidelines for the analysis of data obtained from one or both eyes. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 33:7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Martínez-Abad A, Piñero DP, Ruiz-Fortes P et al (2017) Evaluation of the diagnostic ability of vector parameters characterizing the corneal astigmatism and regularity in clinical and subclinical keratoconus. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 40:88–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Safarzadeh M, Nasiri N (2016) Anterior segment characteristics in normal and keratoconus eyes evaluated with a combined Scheimpflug/Placido corneal imaging device. J Curr Ophthalmol 25(28):106–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goto T, Klyce S, Zheng X et al (2001) Gender and age related differences in corneal topography. Cornea 20:270–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IRCCS-G.B. Bietti Eye FoundationRomeItaly
  2. 2.Israelitic Hospital, Piazza S.Bartolomeo all’Isola 1RomeItaly
  3. 3.Laboratory of Molecular Psychiatry and NeurogeneticsUniversity Campus BiomedicoRomeItaly
  4. 4.CSO (Costruzione Strumenti Oftalmici srl)Scandicci FlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations