Advertisement

Agreement and repeatability of central corneal thickness measurements by four different optical devices and an ultrasound pachymeter

  • Nesrin Buyuktortop Gokcinar
  • Erhan Yumusak
  • Nurgul Ornek
  • Serap Yorubulut
  • Zafer Onaran
Original Paper
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the repeatability and agreement of central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (OCT), corneal topography (CT) with a combined Scheimpflug–Placido system, optical biometry (OB), specular microscopy (SM), and ultrasound pachymetry (UP).

Methods

A single observer measured CCT twice in 150 eyes of 150 subjects with each of five devices: Nidek RS-3000 Advance OCT, CSO Sirius combined Scheimpflug–Placido disc system CT, Nidek AL-Scan partial coherence interferometry-based OB, Tomey EM-3000 SM, and Reichert iPac ultrasonic pachymeter. Pachymetry values corrected by the SM device software were also recorded. Levels of agreement between devices were evaluated by Bland–Altman plots with 95% limits of agreement, and repeatability for each device was analysed with intraclass correlation coefficients.

Results

The mean CCTs measured by OCT, CT, OB, SM, corrected SM, and UP were 544.60 ± 29.56, 536.19 ± 32.14, 528.29 ± 29.45, 524.88 ± 32.38, 537.88 ± 32.38, and 545.29 ± 30.75 μm, respectively. Mean CCT differed significantly between the devices (p < 0.05) apart from between OCT and UP, and between CT and corrected SM. Mean paired differences between devices ranged between 0.68 and 20.41 μm. Repeatability with all devices was excellent (> 0.99). The range of limits of agreement was the least between OCT and UP.

Conclusions

Different CCT measurement techniques produce quite different results, so CCT evaluation and follow-up should be performed using the same device or devices with close compatibility.

Keywords

Central corneal thickness Corneal topography Optical coherence tomography Optic biometry Specular microscopy Ultrasonic pachymeter 

Notes

Funding

This research received no grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The ethical approval was obtained from Kırıkkale University Clinical Research Ethical Committee, Date: 10.11.2015, Number: 25/08.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Lackner B, Schmidinger G, Pieh S, Funovics MA, Skorpik C (2005) Repeatability and reproducibility of central corneal thickness measurement with Pentacam, Orbscan, and ultrasound. Optom Vis Sci 82(10):892–899CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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(9):1729–1735CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chakrabarti HS, Craig JP, Brahma A, Malik TY, McGhee CN (2001) Comparison of corneal thickness measurements using ultrasound and Orbscan slit-scanning topography in normal and post-LASIK eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg 27(11):1823–1828CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Doughty MJ, Jonuscheit S (2010) The orbscan acoustic (correction) factor for central corneal thickness measures of normal human corneas. Eye Contact Lens 36(2):106–115CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gonul S, Koktekir BE, Bakbak B, Gedik S (2014) Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements using optical low-coherence reflectometry, Fourier domain optical coherence tomography, and Scheimpflug camera. Arq Bras Oftalmol 77(6):345–350PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Khaja WA, Grover S, Kelmenson AT, Ferguson LR, Sambhav K, Chalam KV (2015) Comparison of central corneal thickness: ultrasound pachymetry versus slit-lamp optical coherence tomography, specular microscopy, and Orbscan. Clin Ophthalmol 9:1065–1070PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bechmann M, Thiel M, Roesen B et al (2000) Central corneal thickness determined with optical coherence tomography in various types of glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 84(11):1233–1237CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wirbelauer C, Scholz C, Hoerauf H et al (2002) Noncontact corneal pachymetry with slit lamp-adapted optical coherence tomography. Am J Ophthalmol 133(4):444–450CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wong AC-M, Wong C-C, Yuen NS-Y et al (2002) Correlational study of central corneal thickness measurements on Hong Kong Chinese using optical coherence tomography, Orbscan and ultrasound pachymetry. Eye 16(6):715–721CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Amano S, Honda N, Amano Y et al (2006) Comparison of central corneal thickness by rotating Scheimpflug camera, ultrasonic pachymetry, and scanning-slit corneal topography. Ophthalmology 113(6):937–941CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li H, Leung CK, Wong L et al (2008) Comparative study of central corneal thickness measurement with slit-lamp optical coherence tomography and visante optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology 115(5):796–801CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rao HL, Kumar AU, Kumar A et al (2011) Evaluation of central corneal thickness measurement with RTVue spectral domain optical coherence tomography in normal subjects. Cornea 30(2):121–126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beutelspacher SC, Serbecic N, Scheuerle AF (2011) Assessment of central corneal thickness using OCT, ultrasound, optical low coherence reflectometry and Scheimpflug pachymetry. Eur J Ophthalmol 21(2):132–137CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim HY, Budenz DL, Lee PS, Feuer WJ, Barton K (2008) Comparison of central corneal thickness using anterior segment optical coherence tomography vs ultrasound pachymetry. Am J Ophthalmol 145(2):228–232CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bayhan HA, Aslan Bayhan S, Can I (2014) Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements with three new optical devices and a standard ultrasonic pachymeter. Int J Ophthalmol 7(2):302–308PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Randleman JB, Lynn MJ, Perez-Straziota CE, Weissman HM, Kim SW (2015) Comparison of central and peripheral corneal thickness measurements with scanning-slit, Scheimpflug and Fourier-domain ocular coherence tomography. Br J Ophthalmol 99(9):1176–1181CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sedaghat MR, Daneshvar R, Kargozar A, Derakhshan A, Daraei M (2010) Comparison of central corneal thickness measurement using ultrasonic pachymetry, rotating Scheimpflug camera, and scanning-slit topography. Am J Ophthalmol 150(6):780–789CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Módis L Jr, Szalai E, Németh G, Berta A (2011) Reliability of the corneal thickness measurements with the Pentacam HR imaging system and ultrasound pachymetry. Cornea 30(5):561–566CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bao F, Wang Q, Cheng S et al (2014) Comparison and evaluation of central corneal thickness using 2 new noncontact specular microscopes and conventional pachymetry devices. Cornea 33(6):576–581CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scotto R, Bagnis A, Papadia M, Cutolo CA, Risso D, Traverso CE (2017) Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements using ultrasonic pachymetry, anterior segment OCT and noncontact specular microscopy. J Glaucoma 26(10):860–865CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pierro L, Iuliano L, Gagliardi M, Ambrosi A, Rama P, Bandello F (2016) Central corneal thickness reproducibility among ten different instruments. Optom Vis Sci 93(11):1371–1379CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McAlinden C, Khadka J, Pesudovs K (2015) Precision (repeatability and reproducibility) studies and sample-size calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg 41(12):2598–2604CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of MedicineKırıkkale University HospitalYahşihanTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Statistics, Faculty of Science and LettersKırıkkale UniversityKırıkkaleTurkey

Personalised recommendations