PURPOSE: Accurate measurement of central corneal thickness (CCT) is essential in refractive surgery and advanced glaucoma diagnostics. The gold standard for pachymetry is full-contact ultrasound-based pachymetry. As this method is associated with potential sources of error, noncontact methods have been introduced. The aim of this study was to compare CCT results measured using 4 different techniques. METHODS: In this analysis of 20 patients (40 eyes) at the University Eye Hospital Heidelberg, Germany, we compared a slit-lamp-mounted optical coherence tomography (OCT) system (SL-OCT, Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany), conventional ultrasound pachymetry (IOPac, Heidelberg Engineering), optical low coherence reflectometry (OLCR, Haag-Streit, Germany), and scanning-slit pachymetry (Orbscan). RESULTS: Comparison among the 4 groups did not show significant differences, except the comparison of OLCR to Orbscan; the mean was significantly different (p=0.0247) and the Orbscan detected slightly thicker values than the other methods. CONCLUSIONS: Orbscan, SL-OCT, and OLCR provide non-touch technology, without the need for local anesthesia, and limiting the risk of infection or artifacts. Extreme care must be used interpreting the results obtained from Orbscan, as this technique may overestimate the CCT significantly.
PURPOSE: Accurate measurement of central corneal thickness (CCT) is essential in refractive surgery and advanced glaucoma diagnostics. The gold standard for pachymetry is full-contact ultrasound-based pachymetry. As this method is associated with potential sources of error, noncontact methods have been introduced. The aim of this study was to compare CCT results measured using 4 different techniques. METHODS: In this analysis of 20 patients (40 eyes) at the University Eye Hospital Heidelberg, Germany, we compared a slit-lamp-mounted optical coherence tomography (OCT) system (SL-OCT, Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany), conventional ultrasound pachymetry (IOPac, Heidelberg Engineering), optical low coherence reflectometry (OLCR, Haag-Streit, Germany), and scanning-slit pachymetry (Orbscan). RESULTS: Comparison among the 4 groups did not show significant differences, except the comparison of OLCR to Orbscan; the mean was significantly different (p=0.0247) and the Orbscan detected slightly thicker values than the other methods. CONCLUSIONS: Orbscan, SL-OCT, and OLCR provide non-touch technology, without the need for local anesthesia, and limiting the risk of infection or artifacts. Extreme care must be used interpreting the results obtained from Orbscan, as this technique may overestimate the CCT significantly.
Authors: Eun Ji Lee; Tae-Woo Kim; Robert N Weinreb; Min Hee Suh; Hyunjoong Kim Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2012-09-20 Impact factor: 3.117