Advertisement

International Ophthalmology

, Volume 38, Issue 6, pp 2363–2369 | Cite as

Comparison of central corneal thickness with four different optical devices

  • Kuddusi TeberikEmail author
  • Mehmet Tahir Eski
  • Murat Kaya
  • Handan Ankaralı
Original Paper
  • 148 Downloads

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

Keywords

Central corneal thickness İPac® Scheimpflug camera Sirius topography Ultrasound pachymetry 

Notes

Acknowledgements

None of the authors has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

References

  1. 1.
    Huang J, Savini G, Hu L et al (2013) Precision of a new Scheimpflug and Placido-disk analyzer in measuring corneal thickness and agreement with ultrasound pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg 39:219–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mandell RB, Polse KA (1969) Keratoconus: spatial variation of corneal thickness as a diagnostic test. Arch Ophthalmol 82:182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gherghel D, Hosking SL, Mantry S et al (2004) Corneal pachymetry in normal and keratoconic eyes: orbscan II versus ultrasound. J Cataract Refract Surg 30:1272–1277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maresca N, Zeri F, Palumbo P et al (2014) Agreement and reliability in measuring central corneal thickness with a rotating Scheimpflug–Placido system and ultrasound pachymetry. Contact Lens Anterior Eye 37:442–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dueker DK, Singh K, Lin SC et al (2007) Corneal thickness measurement in the management of primary open-angle glaucoma: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 114:1779–1787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tai LY, Khaw KW, Ng CM et al (2013) Central corneal thickness measurements with different imaging devices and ultrasound pachymetry. Cornea 32:766–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Şimşek A, Bilak Ş, Güler M et al (2016) Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements obtained by RTVue OCT, Lenstar, Sirius topography, and ultrasound pachymetry in healthy subjects. Semin Ophthalmol 31:467–472PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lanza M, Paolillo E, Gironi Carnevale UA et al (2015) Central corneal thickness evaluation in healthy eyes with three different optical devices. Contact Lens Anterior Eye 38:409–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee YG, Kim JH, Kim NR et al (2011) Comparison between Tonopachy and other tonometric and pachymetric devices. Optom Vis Sci 88:843–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hashemi H, Jafarzadehpur E, Mehravaran S et al (2011) Comparison of corneal thickness measurement with the Pentacam, the PARK1 and an ultrasonic pachymeter. Clin Exp Optom 94:433–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lattimore MR Jr (1996) Influence of extended soft contact lens wear on the comparative measurement of central corneal thickness. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 74:239–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen S, Huang J, Wen D et al (2012) Measurement of central corneal thickness by high-resolution Scheimpflug imaging, Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography and ultrasound pachymetry. Acta Ophthalmol 90:449–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nemeth G, Tsorbatzoglou A, Kertesz K et al (2006) Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements with a new optical device and a standard ultrasonic pachymeter. J Cataract Refract Surg 32:460–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Paul T, Lim M, Starr CE et al (2008) Central corneal thickness measured by the Orbscan II system, contact ultrasound pachymetry, and the Artemis 2 system. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:1906–1912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Solomon OD (1999) Corneal indentation during ultrasonic pachometry. Cornea 18:214–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Santodomingo-Rubido J, Mallen EA, Gilmartin B et al (2002) A new non-contact optical device for ocular biometry. Br J Ophthalmol 86:458–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hashemi H, Mehravaran Sh (2007) Central corneal thickness measurement with Pentacam, Orbscan II, and ultrasound devices before and after laser refractive surgery for myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 33:1701–1707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Al-Mezaine HS, Al-Amro SA, Kangave D et al (2008) Comparison between central corneal thickness measurements by oculus pentacam and ultrasonic pachymetry. Int Ophthalmol 28:333–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fujioka M, Nakamura M, Tatsumi Y et al (2007) Comparison of Pentacam Scheimpflug camera with ultrasound pachymetry and noncontact specular microscopy in measuring central corneal thickness. Curr Eye Res 32:89–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Amano S, Honda N, Amano Y et al (2006) Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by rotating Scheimpflug camera, ultrasonic pachymetry, and scanning-slit corneal topography. Ophthalmology 113:937–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Barkana Y, Gerber Y, Elbaz U et al (2005) Central corneal thickness measurement with the Pentacam Scheimpflug system, optical low-coherence reflectometry pachymeter, and ultrasound pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg 31:1729–1735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    O’Donnell C, Maldonado-Codina C (2005) Agreement and repeatability of central thickness measurement in normal corneas using ultrasound pachymetry and the OCULUS Pentacam. Cornea 24:920–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kniestedt C, Lin S, Choe J et al (2005) Clinical comparison of contour and applanation tonometry and their relationship to pachymetry. Arch Ophthalmol 123:1532–1537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bron AM, Creuzot-Garcher C, Goudeau-Boutillon S et al (1999) Falsely elevated intraocular pressure due to increased central corneal thickness. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 237:220–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chatterjee A, Shah S, Bessant DA et al (1997) Reduction in intraocular pressure after excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy. Correlation with pretreatment myopia. Ophthalmology 104:355–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyDüzce University Medical SchoolDüzceTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Biostatistics and Medical InformaticsDüzce University Medical SchoolDüzceTurkey

Personalised recommendations