Anthony F Alario1, Christopher G Pirie. 1. Department of Clinical Sciences, Tufts Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, North Grafton, MA, 01536, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements obtained from normal canines using a spectral-domain optical coherence tomography device (SD-OCT) and an ultrasonic pachymeter. ANIMALS: Fifteen clinically normal dogs. PROCEDURES: Dogs were briefly anesthetized with propofol. Central corneal thickness measurements were obtained from both eyes of each animal four times by one operator using a SD-OCT system. The CCT was automatically calculated using the pachymetry software generated from eight radial scans, 6 mm in length. Ultrasonic pachymetry was then performed in both eyes of each animal by one operator five times in succession. The CCT was recorded for each modality and compared statistically for agreement and bias. RESULTS: Fifteen dogs (seven castrated male, eight spayed female) with a mean age of 2.3 ± 1.3 years were examined. The mean CCT for all eyes examined via SD-OCT and ultrasonic pachymetry (velocity set at 1636 m/s) was 587.72 ± 32.44 μm and 598.54 ± 32.28 μm, respectively. Ultrasonic pachymetry consistently overestimated CCT as compared to OCT by a mean value of 10.82 μm (P < 0.0001). No significant difference in CCT was found based on the age or sex of the animal. There was no significant difference in CCT measurements between replicates performed by the same operator for each modality. The coefficient of variation within and between imaging modalities was low (range 0.63-2.5%). The intraclass correlation coefficient comparing methods was 0.92. CONCLUSIONS: Correlation between modalities was excellent; however, ultrasonic pachymetry set at a standard velocity of 1636 m/s overestimates CCT as compared to OCT.
OBJECTIVE: To compare central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements obtained from normal canines using a spectral-domain optical coherence tomography device (SD-OCT) and an ultrasonic pachymeter. ANIMALS: Fifteen clinically normal dogs. PROCEDURES: Dogs were briefly anesthetized with propofol. Central corneal thickness measurements were obtained from both eyes of each animal four times by one operator using a SD-OCT system. The CCT was automatically calculated using the pachymetry software generated from eight radial scans, 6 mm in length. Ultrasonic pachymetry was then performed in both eyes of each animal by one operator five times in succession. The CCT was recorded for each modality and compared statistically for agreement and bias. RESULTS: Fifteen dogs (seven castrated male, eight spayed female) with a mean age of 2.3 ± 1.3 years were examined. The mean CCT for all eyes examined via SD-OCT and ultrasonic pachymetry (velocity set at 1636 m/s) was 587.72 ± 32.44 μm and 598.54 ± 32.28 μm, respectively. Ultrasonic pachymetry consistently overestimated CCT as compared to OCT by a mean value of 10.82 μm (P < 0.0001). No significant difference in CCT was found based on the age or sex of the animal. There was no significant difference in CCT measurements between replicates performed by the same operator for each modality. The coefficient of variation within and between imaging modalities was low (range 0.63-2.5%). The intraclass correlation coefficient comparing methods was 0.92. CONCLUSIONS: Correlation between modalities was excellent; however, ultrasonic pachymetry set at a standard velocity of 1636 m/s overestimates CCT as compared to OCT.
Authors: A L Hoehn; S M Thomasy; P H Kass; T Horikawa; M Samuel; O R Shull; K A Stewart; C J Murphy Journal: Vet J Date: 2018-10-30 Impact factor: 2.688
Authors: Michelle Samuel; Sara M Thomasy; Allison S Calderon; Philip H Kass; Keith Collins; Christopher J Murphy Journal: Vet Ophthalmol Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 1.644
Authors: Ann R Strom; Dennis E Cortés; Carol A Rasmussen; Sara M Thomasy; Kim McIntyre; Shwu-Fei Lee; Philip H Kass; Mark J Mannis; Christopher J Murphy Journal: Vet Ophthalmol Date: 2015-02-10 Impact factor: 1.644
Authors: Kelly E Knickelbein; Mary E Lassaline; Soohyun Kim; Machal S Scharbrough; Sara M Thomasy Journal: Vet Ophthalmol Date: 2022-01-27 Impact factor: 1.444
Authors: Uttio Roy Chowdhury; Rachel A Kudgus; Bradley H Holman; Tommy A Rinkoski; Cheryl R Hann; Cindy K Bahler; Eric McCloud; Susan E Appt; Joel M Reid; Peter I Dosa; Michael P Fautsch Journal: J Ocul Pharmacol Ther Date: 2021-03-30 Impact factor: 2.850
Authors: Brian C Leonard; Celine S Kermanian; Sarah R Michalak; Philip H Kass; Steven R Hollingsworth; Kathryn L Good; David J Maggs; Sara M Thomasy Journal: Cornea Date: 2021-05-01 Impact factor: 3.152