J Bradley Randleman1, Michael J Lynn2, Claudia E Perez-Straziota3, Heather M Weissman3, Sang Woo Kim4. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA Emory Vision, Emory Eye Center, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 2. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan, South Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare central, regional and relational corneal thickness values obtained with multiple technologies in normal patients and to determine their equivalence and interchangeability. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 100 eyes from 50 patients evaluated by ultrasound pachymetry (Pachette II), scanning-slit (Orbscan II), Scheimpflug (Pentacam HR) and spectral-domain ocular coherence tomography (OCT) (RTVue-100) obtained as average values (OCT-A) and point measurements (OCT-P). Measurements included central corneal thickness (CCT) for all technologies and thinnest corneal thickness for scanning-slit, Scheimpflug and OCT. Peripheral thickness measurements were obtained at the 3 mm radius in the superior (S), nasal (N), inferior (I) and temporal (T) regions. RESULTS: CCT values were: 563.9±36.1μ ultrasound, 570.9±36.1μ scanning-slit, 552.8±33.8μ Scheimpflug, 550.5±32.7μ (OCT-A), 549.4±32.7μ (OCT-P). Ultrasound and scanning-slit were significantly different from each other (p<0.0001), and both were significantly different from all other devices (p<0.0001), while Scheimpflug was similar to OCT-A and OCT-P (p=0.4). Differences between CCT and thinnest corneal thickness were significantly different from all technologies except scanning-slit and OCT-A. For peripheral values, almost all locations' measurements were significantly different from one another (p<0.0001). Superior-inferior values and ratios were also significantly different from one another for almost all devices with no consistent patterns detectible. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant clinically relevant differences between regional and relational thickness measurements obtained with ultrasound, scanning-slit, Scheimpflug and OCT devices. Screening metrics devised for one system do not appear directly applicable to other measurement systems. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
PURPOSE: To compare central, regional and relational corneal thickness values obtained with multiple technologies in normal patients and to determine their equivalence and interchangeability. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 100 eyes from 50 patients evaluated by ultrasound pachymetry (Pachette II), scanning-slit (Orbscan II), Scheimpflug (Pentacam HR) and spectral-domain ocular coherence tomography (OCT) (RTVue-100) obtained as average values (OCT-A) and point measurements (OCT-P). Measurements included central corneal thickness (CCT) for all technologies and thinnest corneal thickness for scanning-slit, Scheimpflug and OCT. Peripheral thickness measurements were obtained at the 3 mm radius in the superior (S), nasal (N), inferior (I) and temporal (T) regions. RESULTS: CCT values were: 563.9±36.1μ ultrasound, 570.9±36.1μ scanning-slit, 552.8±33.8μ Scheimpflug, 550.5±32.7μ (OCT-A), 549.4±32.7μ (OCT-P). Ultrasound and scanning-slit were significantly different from each other (p<0.0001), and both were significantly different from all other devices (p<0.0001), while Scheimpflug was similar to OCT-A and OCT-P (p=0.4). Differences between CCT and thinnest corneal thickness were significantly different from all technologies except scanning-slit and OCT-A. For peripheral values, almost all locations' measurements were significantly different from one another (p<0.0001). Superior-inferior values and ratios were also significantly different from one another for almost all devices with no consistent patterns detectible. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant clinically relevant differences between regional and relational thickness measurements obtained with ultrasound, scanning-slit, Scheimpflug and OCT devices. Screening metrics devised for one system do not appear directly applicable to other measurement systems. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
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: Eric S Hwang; Claudia E Perez-Straziota; Sang Woo Kim; Marcony R Santhiago; J Bradley Randleman Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2018-07-25 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Taher K Eleiwa; Amr Elsawy; Zeba A Syed; Vatookarn Roongpoovapatr; Ahmed M Sayed; Sonia H Yoo; Mohamed Abou Shousha Journal: Curr Eye Res Date: 2020-02-16 Impact factor: 2.424
Authors: Peter M Maloca; Harald P Studer; Renato Ambrósio; David Goldblum; Simon Rothenbuehler; Daniel Barthelmes; Sandrine Zweifel; Hendrik P N Scholl; Konstantinos Balaskas; Adnan Tufail; Pascal W Hasler Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-09-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Elmira Baghdasaryan; Xiwen Huang; Kenneth M Marion; Tudor C Tepelus; Homayoun Bagherinia; SriniVas R Sadda; Hugo Y Hsu Journal: Open Ophthalmol J Date: 2018-05-18