Literature DB >> 26048662

Central corneal thickness evaluation in healthy eyes with three different optical devices.

Michele Lanza1, Erica Paolillo2, Ugo Antonello Gironi Carnevale2, Alessandro Lanza2, Carlo Irregolare3, Luigi Mele2, Mario Bifani2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare corneal pachymetry values measured by three different optical devices: Orbscan II, Pentacam HR and Sirius in healthy eyes.
METHODS: The central corneal thickness (CCT) of 102 eyes of 102 healthy subjects (mean age of 33.09 ± 8.72 years and mean refractive defect -4.11 ± 4.74 D) was measured by three different physicians using Orbscan II, Pentacam HR and Sirius. The normality of the distribution was evaluated by with Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The correlations between CCT obtained from each device and refractive defect and age were evaluated using the Pearson test. The differences were evaluated by the Student paired t-test using SPSS 18.0 (IBM Corp. Armonk, New York).
RESULTS: Orbscan II provided significant (p < 0.0001) lower CCT measurements then both Pentacam HR (-13.66 ± 16.53 μm) and Sirius (-15.18 ± 17.16 μm); Sirius showed values slightly higher than Oculus Pentacam HR (+1.52 ± 6.21 μm) that appeared to be statistically significant (p < 0.015).
CONCLUSIONS: The measurement of CCT by Sirius and Pentacam HR provides similar results. By contrast, the results obtained by Orbscan II are different from those obtained from both Sirius and Pentacam HR.
Copyright © 2015 British Contact Lens Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  Central corneal thickness; Optical pachymetry; Orbscan II; Scheimpflug camera

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26048662     DOI: 10.1016/j.clae.2015.05.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cont Lens Anterior Eye        ISSN: 1367-0484            Impact factor:   3.077


  9 in total

1.  Accelerated versus Standard Corneal Cross-linking for Progressive Keratoconus in Syria.

Authors:  Abdelrahman M Salman; Taym R Darwish; Yusra H Haddad; Rafea H Shabaan; Mohammad Z Askar
Journal:  J Ophthalmic Vis Res       Date:  2021-07-29

2.  Different accelerated corneal collagen cross-linking treatment modalities in progressive keratoconus.

Authors:  Ahmet Kirgiz; Mustafa Eliacik; Yusuf Yildirim
Journal:  Eye Vis (Lond)       Date:  2019-06-03

3.  Comparison of central corneal thickness with four different optical devices.

Authors:  Kuddusi Teberik; Mehmet Tahir Eski; Murat Kaya; Handan Ankaralı
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-10-11       Impact factor: 2.031

4.  Evaluation of Central Corneal Thickness Using Corneal Dynamic Scheimpflug Analyzer Corvis ST and Comparison with Pentacam Rotating Scheimpflug System and Ultrasound Pachymetry in Normal Eyes.

Authors:  Ayong Yu; Weiqi Zhao; Giacomo Savini; Zixu Huang; Fangjun Bao; Weicong Lu; Qinmei Wang; Jinhai Huang
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 1.909

Review 5.  Applications of Scheimpflug Imaging in Glaucoma Management: Current and Potential Applications.

Authors:  Alexander T Nguyen; Tiffany Liu; Ji Liu
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-12-04       Impact factor: 1.909

6.  Corneal power evaluation after myopic corneal refractive surgery using artificial neural networks.

Authors:  Robert Koprowski; Michele Lanza; Carlo Irregolare
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2016-11-15       Impact factor: 2.819

7.  Evaluation of Anterior Segment Parameters in Pseudoexfoliative Glaucoma, Primary Angle-Closure Glaucoma, and Healthy Eyes.

Authors:  Nilgün Özkan Aksoy; Burçin Çakır; Emine Doğan; Gürsoy Alagöz
Journal:  Turk J Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-10-31

8.  Scheimpflug vs Scanning-Slit Corneal Tomography: Comparison of Corneal and Anterior Chamber Tomography Indices for Repeatability and Agreement in Healthy Eyes.

Authors:  Anastasios John Kanellopoulos
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-09-04

9.  Corneal thickness evaluation in healthy eyes: Comparison between two different Scheimpflug devices.

Authors:  Nicola Rosa; Maddalena De Bernardo; Angela Pepe; Livio Vitiello; Giuseppe Marotta; Roberto Imparato; Luigi Capasso
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-12-03       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.