PURPOSE: To compare the central corneal thickness (CCT) in normal eyes, eyes with keratoconus, and eyes after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) using 3 methods. SETTING: Cornea Clinic, Grewal Eye Institute, Chandigarh, India. METHODS: In this study, CCT was measured by sequential Scheimpflug imaging, spectral-domain anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT), and ultrasound (US) pachymetry. RESULTS: Each of the 3 groups comprised 50 eyes. There were no differences between the 3 groups in age, sex, or intraocular pressure. In normal eyes, CCT was statistically significantly higher by US pachymetry (mean 525.8 microm +/- 41.4) [SD] than by Scheimpflug imaging (mean 519.4 +/- 40.9 microm) and AS-OCT (mean 517.9 +/- 41.5 microm) (both P<.001). In keratoconus eyes, CCT by US pachymetry (mean 446.4 +/- 57.9 microm) was statistically significantly higher than by Scheimpflug imaging (mean 439.6 +/- 62.1 microm) (P = .002) and AS-OCT (mean 441.8 +/- 58.4 microm) (P = .007). In post-LASIK eyes CCT by US pachymetry (mean 462.4 +/- 44.7 microm) was significantly higher than by Scheimpflug imaging (mean 457.9 +/- 33.6 microm) (P = .012) and AS-OCT (mean 455.4 +/- 43.2 microm) (P<.001). In all groups, CCT measured by Scheimpflug imaging and AS-OCT was similar. CONCLUSIONS: There was a statistically significant difference between Scheimpflug imaging and US pachymetry and AS-OCT, with US pachymetry measurements being consistently thicker. Thus, CCT should be interpreted in the context of the instrument used. (c) 2010 ASCRS and ESCRS. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: To compare the central corneal thickness (CCT) in normal eyes, eyes with keratoconus, and eyes after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) using 3 methods. SETTING: Cornea Clinic, Grewal Eye Institute, Chandigarh, India. METHODS: In this study, CCT was measured by sequential Scheimpflug imaging, spectral-domain anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT), and ultrasound (US) pachymetry. RESULTS: Each of the 3 groups comprised 50 eyes. There were no differences between the 3 groups in age, sex, or intraocular pressure. In normal eyes, CCT was statistically significantly higher by US pachymetry (mean 525.8 microm +/- 41.4) [SD] than by Scheimpflug imaging (mean 519.4 +/- 40.9 microm) and AS-OCT (mean 517.9 +/- 41.5 microm) (both P<.001). In keratoconus eyes, CCT by US pachymetry (mean 446.4 +/- 57.9 microm) was statistically significantly higher than by Scheimpflug imaging (mean 439.6 +/- 62.1 microm) (P = .002) and AS-OCT (mean 441.8 +/- 58.4 microm) (P = .007). In post-LASIK eyes CCT by US pachymetry (mean 462.4 +/- 44.7 microm) was significantly higher than by Scheimpflug imaging (mean 457.9 +/- 33.6 microm) (P = .012) and AS-OCT (mean 455.4 +/- 43.2 microm) (P<.001). In all groups, CCT measured by Scheimpflug imaging and AS-OCT was similar. CONCLUSIONS: There was a statistically significant difference between Scheimpflug imaging and US pachymetry and AS-OCT, with US pachymetry measurements being consistently thicker. Thus, CCT should be interpreted in the context of the instrument used. (c) 2010 ASCRS and ESCRS. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Xiaohui Li; Yelena Bykhovskaya; Ana Laura Caiado Canedo; Talin Haritunians; David Siscovick; Anthony J Aldave; Loretta Szczotka-Flynn; Sudha K Iyengar; Jerome I Rotter; Kent D Taylor; Yaron S Rabinowitz Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2013-04-12 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: C Ellis Wisely; Javed A Sayed; Heather Tamez; Chris Zelinka; Mohamed H Abdel-Rahman; Andy J Fischer; Colleen M Cebulla Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2017-06-28 Impact factor: 21.198
Authors: Anthony N Kuo; Ryan P McNabb; Mingtao Zhao; Francesco Larocca; Sandra S Stinnett; Sina Farsiu; Joseph A Izatt Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2012-05-08 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Esther M Hoffmann; Julia Lamparter; Alireza Mirshahi; Heike Elflein; René Hoehn; Christian Wolfram; Katrin Lorenz; Max Adler; Philipp S Wild; Andreas Schulz; Barbara Mathes; Maria Blettner; Norbert Pfeiffer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 3.240