Literature DB >> 30503546

Comparison of ultrasonic pachymetry and Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography for measurement of corneal thickness in dogs with and without corneal disease.

A L Hoehn1, S M Thomasy2, P H Kass3, T Horikawa4, M Samuel5, O R Shull1, K A Stewart1, C J Murphy6.   

Abstract

Several ultrasonic and Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography (FD-OCT) pachymeters are used to measure corneal thickness in canine patients and research subjects. This study assessed the reliability of and consistency between two ultrasonic pachymetry (USP) devices, Pachette 3 and Accupach VI, as well as automated and manual measurements obtained using FD-OCT in dogs with and without corneal disease. Corneal thickness measurements were compiled from 108 dogs and analyzed using mixed effects linear regression, with Bonferonni adjustments for post-hoc comparisons, to determine the effects of age, weight and disease state. Data are presented as predicted mean±standard error. Canine corneal disease can result in marked increases in thickness that frequently exceed the upper limits of measurement of some pachymetry devices developed for human use. In this study, the corneas of dogs with endothelial disease or injury frequently exceeded the upper limits of quantitation of 999 and 800μm for the Accupach VI and automated FD-OCT pachymeters, respectively. Using values <800μm, the Pachette 3 generated significantly greater values for central corneal thickness (CCT) than the Accupach VI, manual FD-OCT and automated FD-OCT at 625±7.0, 615±7.2, 613±7.2, and 606±7.4μm respectively (P<0.001). Of the two devices where measurements >1000μm were obtained, manual FD-OCT demonstrated less variability than the Pachette 3. Corneal thickness increased linearly with age and weight with an increase of 6.9±1.8μm/year and 1.6±0.8μm/kg body weight (P<0.005 and P=0.038, respectively).
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Canine; Corneal endothelial dystrophy; Corneal thickness; Optical coherence tomography; Ultrasonic pachymetry

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30503546      PMCID: PMC6373481          DOI: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2018.10.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vet J        ISSN: 1090-0233            Impact factor:   2.688


  28 in total

1.  Measuring central corneal thickness with ultrasound pachymetry.

Authors:  Tony Realini; Kim Lovelace
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 1.973

2.  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

3.  Comparison of central corneal thickness using anterior segment optical coherence tomography vs ultrasound pachymetry.

Authors:  Hanna Y Kim; Donald L Budenz; Pak S Lee; William J Feuer; Keith Barton
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2007-12-11       Impact factor: 5.258

4.  Central and peripheral corneal thickness measured with optical coherence tomography, Scheimpflug imaging, and ultrasound pachymetry in normal, keratoconus-suspect, and post-laser in situ keratomileusis eyes.

Authors:  Claudia Maria Prospero Ponce; Karolinne Maia Rocha; Scott D Smith; Ronald R Krueger
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 3.351

5.  Intraoperator repeatability and interoperator reproducibility in the ultrasonic pachymetry measurements of central corneal thickness.

Authors:  Weerawat Kiddee; Orasa Horattanareung
Journal:  J Med Assoc Thai       Date:  2009-05

6.  Average 3-dimensional models for the comparison of Orbscan II and Pentacam pachymetry maps in normal corneas.

Authors:  Jean-Louis Bourges; Nicolas Alfonsi; Jean-François Laliberté; Miguel Chagnon; Gilles Renard; Jean-Marc Legeais; Isabelle Brunette
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2009-09-10       Impact factor: 12.079

7.  Central corneal thickness measurements with Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography versus ultrasonic pachymetry and rotating Scheimpflug camera.

Authors:  Akihiro Ishibazawa; Sho Igarashi; Kazuomi Hanada; Taiji Nagaoka; Satoshi Ishiko; Haruna Ito; Akitoshi Yoshida
Journal:  Cornea       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 2.651

Review 8.  Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta-analysis approach.

Authors:  M J Doughty; M L Zaman
Journal:  Surv Ophthalmol       Date:  2000 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 6.048

9.  Comparison of three methods of measuring corneal thickness and anterior chamber depth.

Authors:  Wolf Buehl; Danijela Stojanac; Stefan Sacu; Wolfgang Drexler; Oliver Findl
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 5.258

10.  Canine corneal thickness measured by ultrasonic pachymetry.

Authors:  B C Gilger; R D Whitley; S A McLaughlin; J C Wright; J W Drane
Journal:  Am J Vet Res       Date:  1991-10       Impact factor: 1.156

View more
  2 in total

1.  Topical Ripasudil for the Treatment of Primary Corneal Endothelial Degeneration in Dogs.

Authors:  Sarah R Michalak; Soohyun Kim; Sangwan Park; M Isabel Casanova; Morgan A W Bowman; Michelle Ferneding; Brian C Leonard; Kathryn L Good; Jennifer Y Li; Sara M Thomasy
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 3.048

2.  Normal Corneal Thickness and Endothelial Cell Density in Rhesus Macaques (Macaca mulatta).

Authors:  M Isabel Casanova; Laura J Young; Sangwan Park; Soohyun Kim; Karolina Roszak; Brian C Leonard; Andrew Blandino; Monica J Motta; Glenn Yiu; Jennifer Y Li; Ala Moshiri; Sara M Thomasy
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 3.048

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.