Literature DB >> 29022163

Comparison of central corneal thickness with four different optical devices.

Kuddusi Teberik1, Mehmet Tahir Eski2, Murat Kaya2, Handan Ankaralı3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To compare the consistency between the average scores of the contact central corneal thickness measurements from ultrasound pachymetry devices still gold standard, such as iPac® and Echoscan US-500, and noncontact measurements via Pentacam HR and Sirius topography.
METHODS: This prospective study, subsequently admitted to the ophthalmology department, 76 healthy individuals were performed. The measurements were repeated three times for each eye, and average scores were statistically analyzed on the same day and almost at the same time. While measuring the eyes, Pentacam HR, Sirius topography, iPac®, and Echoscan US-500 were used, respectively. The inter-rater agreement of measurements from the devices was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficient, and 95% Confidence Interval and p values demonstrating statistically significance were also presented. In the graphical assessment of the agreement, the Bland-Altman graph was used.
RESULTS: Among 76 study participants, 43 (56.6%) were composed of women, and age level was 38.6 ± 12.5 years, ranging between 18 and 69. It was observed that the highest agreement was between the measurements obtained from Echoscan US-500 and iPac® devices, but the agreement between the measurements of different devices was higher than 0.90. Bland-Altman graphics were also investigated; the results of four different devices were seen to be consistent with one another.
CONCLUSIONS: Therefore, the devices we compared in the study can be used as alternatives to one another due to the higher consistency between CCT measurements provided with through UP devices of Echoscan US-500 and iPac®, and Pentacam HR and Sirius topography devices. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2016/112.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Central corneal thickness; Scheimpflug camera; Sirius topography; Ultrasound pachymetry; İPac®

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29022163     DOI: 10.1007/s10792-017-0736-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0165-5701            Impact factor:   2.031


  25 in total

1.  Corneal indentation during ultrasonic pachometry.

Authors:  O D Solomon
Journal:  Cornea       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 2.651

2.  Corneal pachymetry in normal and keratoconic eyes: Orbscan II versus ultrasound.

Authors:  D Gherghel; S L Hosking; S Mantry; S Banerjee; S A Naroo; S Shah
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.351

3.  Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by rotating Scheimpflug camera, ultrasonic pachymetry, and scanning-slit corneal topography.

Authors:  Shiro Amano; Norihiko Honda; Yuki Amano; Satoru Yamagami; Takashi Miyai; Tomokazu Samejima; Miyuki Ogata; Kazunori Miyata
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 12.079

4.  Comparison between central corneal thickness measurements by oculus pentacam and ultrasonic pachymetry.

Authors:  Hani S Al-Mezaine; Saleh A Al-Amro; Dustan Kangave; Abdulkareem Sadaawy; Taher A Wehaib; Saleh Al-Obeidan
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2007-09-26       Impact factor: 2.031

5.  Central corneal thickness measurement with Pentacam, Orbscan II, and ultrasound devices before and after laser refractive surgery for myopia.

Authors:  Hassan Hashemi; Shiva Mehravaran
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 3.351

6.  Reduction in intraocular pressure after excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy. Correlation with pretreatment myopia.

Authors:  A Chatterjee; S Shah; D A Bessant; S A Naroo; S J Doyle
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 12.079

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

Authors:  Michele Lanza; Erica Paolillo; Ugo Antonello Gironi Carnevale; Alessandro Lanza; Carlo Irregolare; Luigi Mele; Mario Bifani
Journal:  Cont Lens Anterior Eye       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 3.077

8.  Central corneal thickness measurements with different imaging devices and ultrasound pachymetry.

Authors:  Lai-Yong Tai; Keat-Ween Khaw; Choung-Min Ng; Visvaraja Subrayan
Journal:  Cornea       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 2.651

9.  Keratoconus: spatial variation of corneal thickenss as a diagnostic test.

Authors:  R B Mandell; K A Polse
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1969-08

10.  Comparison of corneal thickness measurement with the Pentacam, the PARK1 and an ultrasonic pachymeter.

Authors:  Hassan Hashemi; Ebrahim Jafarzadehpur; Shiva Mehravaran; Farhad Rezvan; Sara Bigdeli
Journal:  Clin Exp Optom       Date:  2011-01-24       Impact factor: 2.742

View more
  2 in total

1.  Sirius Scheimpflug-Placido versus ultrasound pachymetry for central corneal thickness: meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yili Jin; Colm McAlinden; Yong Sun; Daizong Wen; Yiran Wang; Jinjin Yu; Ke Feng; Benhao Song; Qinmei Wang; Shihao Chen; Jinhai Huang
Journal:  Eye Vis (Lond)       Date:  2021-02-18

2.  Comparison of Six Methods of Central Corneal Thickness Measurement in Healthy Eyes.

Authors:  Turgay Ucak; Erel Icel; Nurdan Gamze Tasli; Yucel Karakurt; Hayati Yilmaz; Adem Ugurlu; Mehmet Demir
Journal:  Beyoglu Eye J       Date:  2021-02-12
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.