Literature DB >> 30557910

Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements with standard ultrasonic pachymetry and optical devices.

Mustafa Doğan1, Elif Ertan1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To compare the repeatability and agreements of central corneal thickness measurements of healthy individuals obtained by Scheimpflug-Placido topographer (Sirius), anterior segment spectral domain optical coherence tomography (Spectralis) (AS-OCT), optical biometry (AL-Scan) and ultrasonic pachymetry.
METHODS: Sixty-four eyes of 32 subjects with no ocular or systemic diseases were included in this study. Central corneal thickness measurements performed with Sirius, AS-OCT, optical biometry AL-Scan and ultrasonic pachymetry were compared. Bland-Altman analysis was used to demonstrate agreement between methods. Intra-examiner repeatability was assessed by using intraclass correlation co-efficients (ICCs).
RESULTS: Sixty-four eyes of 32 patients were enrolled (25 male and seven female). The mean age was 23.8 years (range 21-28 years). The mean central corneal thickness was 560.8 ± 37.2 μm, 528.8 ± 32.0 μm, 546.4 ± 33.8 μm, 543.4 ± 35.8 μm for the ultrasonic pachymetry, optical biometry AL-Scan, Sirius and AS-OCT values, respectively. The thickest mean central corneal thickness (560.8 ± 37.2 μm) was obtained from ultrasonic pachymetry. The thinnest mean central corneal thickness (528.8 ± 32.0 μm) was obtained from optical biometry AL-Scan. All four modalities of central corneal thickness measurements correlated closely with each other. Intra-examiner repeatability was excellent for all devices with ICCs > 0.90.
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, although measurements obtained by various methods correlate well, the measurements are not directly interchangeable. Between ultrasonic pachymetry and the three optical instruments tested, significant diferences can be seen. Therefore, the same imaging method should be used in corneal thickness follow-ups.
© 2018 Optometry Australia.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Scheimpflug-Placido topographer; central corneal thickness; optical biometry; spectral optical coherence tomography; ultrasonic pachymetry

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30557910     DOI: 10.1111/cxo.12865

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Exp Optom        ISSN: 0816-4622            Impact factor:   2.742


  6 in total

1.  Monitoring of central corneal thickness after phacoemulsification-comparison of statical and rotating Scheimpflug pachymetry, and spectral-domain OCT.

Authors:  Daniel M Handzel; Carsten H Meyer; Alfred Wegener
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-08-18       Impact factor: 1.645

2.  Morphogeometric analysis for characterization of keratoconus considering the spatial localization and projection of apex and minimum corneal thickness point.

Authors:  Jose S Velázquez; Francisco Cavas; David P Piñero; Francisco J F Cañavate; Jorge Alio Del Barrio; Jorge L Alio
Journal:  J Adv Res       Date:  2020-03-30       Impact factor: 10.479

3.  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

4.  Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements with three different optical devices.

Authors:  Mehmet Barış Üçer; Erdinç Bozkurt
Journal:  Ther Adv Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-02-23

5.  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

6.  Evaluation of 6 biometers based on different optical technologies.

Authors:  Robert Montés-Micó
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 3.351

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.