Comparison of the anterior ocular segment measurements using swept-source optical coherent tomography and a scanning peripheral anterior chamber depth analyzer
- 253 Downloads
To compare the anterior ocular segment measurements of two non-contact devices, i.e., anterior segment swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) and the scanning peripheral anterior chamber depth analyzer (SPAC), in patients with glaucoma.
Patients and methods
This was a cross-sectional study of glaucoma patients visiting the Yamanashi University Hospital. The consistency and correlation of various parameters were studied between the SS-OCT and SPAC measurements, including the central corneal thickness (CCT), the central anterior chamber depth (ACD), the trabecular–iris angle (TIA), the angle opening distance (AOD), the area of the recessed angle (ARA), and the trabecular–iris space area (TISA) from the SS-OCT measurements, and the CCT, central ACD, SPAC grade, and SPAC-evaluated anterior chamber angle (ACA) from the SPAC measurements.
Seventy right eyes of 70 patients (27 men, 43 women) with glaucoma were enrolled in the study. The mean patient age was 65.9 ± 14.5 years. The CCT measurements by SS-OCT and the SPAC were 528.3 ± 32.0 and 516.1 ± 28.5 μm, respectively (P < 0.001). The central ACD measurements by SS-OCT and the SPAC were 2.39 ± 0.44 and 2.73 ± 0.50 mm, respectively (P < 0.001). The two devices showed a significant correlation in terms of the CCT measurements (R2 = 0.667, P < 0.0001) and the central ACD measurements (R2 = 0.86, P < 0.0001), but SS-OCT give a significantly shallower central ACD measurement and a thinner CCT measurement compared with the SPAC. AOD, TIA, TISA, and the ARA were all significantly correlated with the SPAC grade and the ACA. Consistency between the two devices was reduced among eyes with primary angle closure.
Based on our results, the SS-OCT and SPAC measurements of the anterior segment were significantly correlated, but the values cannot be considered to be directly interchangeable.
KeywordsAnterior chamber depth Corneal thickness Optical coherent tomography Angle openness Glaucoma
- 4.Lavanya R, Foster PJ, Sakata LM, Friedman DS, Kashiwagi K, Wong TY, et al. Screening for narrow angles in the singapore population: evaluation of new noncontact screening methods. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:1720–7, 7.e1-2.Google Scholar
- 5.Kashiwagi K, Abe K, Tsukahara S. Quantitative evaluation of changes in anterior segment biometry by peripheral laser iridotomy using newly developed scanning peripheral anterior chamber depth analyzer. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004;88:1035–40.Google Scholar
- 13.Kashiwagi K, Kashiwagi K, Toda Y, Osada K, Tsumura T, Tsukahara S. A newly developed peripheral anterior chamber depth analysis system—principle, accuracy, and reproducibility. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004;88:1029–34.Google Scholar
- 20.Fu J, Li SN, Wang XZ, Wu GW, Mu DP, Wang J, et al. Measurement of anterior chamber volume with rotating Scheimpflug camera and anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Chin Med J (Engl). 2010;123:203–7.Google Scholar
- 22.Doors M, Cruysberg LP, Berendschot TT, de Brabander J, Verbakel F, Webers CA, et al. Comparison of central corneal thickness and anterior chamber depth measurements using three imaging technologies in normal eyes and after phakic intraocular lens implantation. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2009;247:1139–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Dinc UA, Oncel B, Gorgun E, Yalvac IS. Assessment of anterior chamber angle using Visante OCT, slit-lamp OCT, and Pentacam. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2009;19(3):411–5Google Scholar
- 27.Lavanya R, Teo L, Friedman DS, Aung HT, Baskaran M, Gao H, et al. Comparison of anterior chamber depth measurements using the IOLMaster, scanning peripheral anterior chamber depth analyser, and anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91:1023–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Kim DY, Sung KR, Kang SY, Cho JW, Lee KS, Park SB, et al. Characteristics and reproducibility of anterior chamber angle assessment by anterior-segment optical coherence tomography. Acta Ophthalmol. 2011;89:435–441.Google Scholar