Literature DB >> 20628301

Comparison of corneal thickness measurements using Galilei, HR Pentacam, and ultrasound.

Hamid Reza Jahadi Hosseini1, Asadollah Katbab, Mohammad Reza Khalili, Mohammad Bagher Abtahi.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the degrees of agreement in measuring corneal thickness in normal eyes between 2 noncontact systems based on the dual Scheimpflug system (Galilei; Ziemer) and rotating Scheimpflug imaging (HR Pentacam; Oculus) and also between each of these methods and the gold-standard method of ultrasound pachymetry.
METHODS: In a prospective study, measurement agreement was assessed in 47 eyes of 47 healthy subjects. All eyes were examined with each of the 3 devices. Measurements made with the Galilei and HR Pentacam were compared with those made with ultrasound. The central corneal thickness (CCT) and thinnest pachymetry of the Galilei and HR Pentacam were also compared.
RESULTS: The mean values of CCT obtained from Galilei, HR Pentacam, and ultrasound were 560.57 ± 29.10, 542.31 ± 30.50, and 548.61 ± 29.92 μm, respectively. The 95% limits of agreement of each of these devices with ultrasound were -11.03 and +34.94 μm for the Galilei and -33.67 and +20.74 μm for the Pentacam. The 95% limits of agreement of Galilei with Pentacam in measurement of central and thinnest corneal thickness were -3.39 and +33.11 and -10.40 and +27.29 μm, respectively. Although CCT measurements made with the HR Pentacam were thinner (P < 0.001), and those obtained with Galilei were thicker (P < 0.001) than those made with ultrasound, there were significant correlation between Galilei and ultrasound (r = 0.92; P < 0.0001) and between HR Pentacam and ultrasound (r = 0.89; P < 0.0001). The central and thinnest corneal thickness measurements made with the HR Pentacam were thinner (P < 0.0001) than those made with Galilei, but there was a significant correlation between Galilei and HR Pentacam in measuring CCT (r = 0.96; P < 0.0001) and thinnest corneal thickness (r = 0.95; P < 0.0001). Bland-Altman plots showed good agreement between these methods.
CONCLUSIONS: Although differences between the devices were statistically significant, there was good correlation and agreement between Galilei and Pentacam in measuring central and thinnest corneal thickness. The corneal thickness measurements made with the HR Pentacam and Galilei also showed good correlation and agreement with those made with ultrasound.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20628301     DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3181cf98e5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cornea        ISSN: 0277-3740            Impact factor:   2.651


  21 in total

1.  Meta-analysis of Pentacam vs. ultrasound pachymetry in central corneal thickness measurement in normal, post-LASIK or PRK, and keratoconic or keratoconus-suspect eyes.

Authors:  Wenjing Wu; Yan Wang; Lulu Xu
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-11-12       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  Difference in normal corneal thickness and curvature between Mongolian and Han nationalities.

Authors:  Hai-Xia Zhao; Li Zhang; Wen-Ying Guan
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-04-18       Impact factor: 1.779

3.  Repeatability and comparability of corneal thickness measurements obtained from Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer and from ultrasonic pachymetry.

Authors:  Zaina N Al-Mohtaseb; Li Wang; Mitchell P Weikert
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-02-17       Impact factor: 3.117

4.  Anatomical characterization of central, apical and minimal corneal thickness.

Authors:  Federico Saenz-Frances; Martha Cecilia Bermúdez-Vallecilla; Lara Borrego-Sanz; Luis Jañez; José María Martinez-de-la-Casa; Laura Morales-Fernandez; Enrique Santos-Bueso; Julián Garcia-Sanchez; Julián Garcia-Feijoo
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-08-18       Impact factor: 1.779

5.  Mutations in PRDM5 in brittle cornea syndrome identify a pathway regulating extracellular matrix development and maintenance.

Authors:  Emma M M Burkitt Wright; Helen L Spencer; Sarah B Daly; Forbes D C Manson; Leo A H Zeef; Jill Urquhart; Nicoletta Zoppi; Richard Bonshek; Ioannis Tosounidis; Meyyammai Mohan; Colm Madden; Annabel Dodds; Kate E Chandler; Siddharth Banka; Leon Au; Jill Clayton-Smith; Naz Khan; Leslie G Biesecker; Meredith Wilson; Marianne Rohrbach; Marina Colombi; Cecilia Giunta; Graeme C M Black
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2011-06-10       Impact factor: 11.025

6.  Comparison of objective and subjective refractive surgery screening parameters between regular and high-resolution Scheimpflug imaging devices.

Authors:  J Bradley Randleman; Jihan Akhtar; Michael J Lynn; Renato Ambrósio; William J Dupps; Ronald R Krueger; Stephen D Klyce
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2014-12-20       Impact factor: 3.351

7.  Measurement of central corneal thickness and pre-corneal tear film thickness of rabbits using the Scheimpflug system.

Authors:  Jing Dong; Qiang Wu; Xiao-Gang Wang
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-10-18       Impact factor: 1.779

Review 8.  Brittle cornea syndrome: recognition, molecular diagnosis and management.

Authors:  Emma M M Burkitt Wright; Louise F Porter; Helen L Spencer; Jill Clayton-Smith; Leon Au; Francis L Munier; Sarah Smithson; Mohnish Suri; Marianne Rohrbach; Forbes D C Manson; Graeme C M Black
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2013-05-04       Impact factor: 4.123

9.  Comparison of Anterior Chamber Depth Measurements from the Galilei Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer with IOLMaster.

Authors:  Roma P Patel; Rahul T Pandit
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-01-19       Impact factor: 1.909

10.  Precision of corneal thickness measurements obtained using the scheimpflug-placido imaging and agreement with ultrasound pachymetry.

Authors:  Jinhai Huang; Giacomo Savini; Chengfang Wang; Weicong Lu; Rongrong Gao; Yuanguang Li; Qinmei Wang; Yune Zhao
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-02-24       Impact factor: 1.909

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.