Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Repeatability and comparability of corneal thickness measurements obtained from Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer and from ultrasonic pachymetry

  • Refractive Surgery
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

To assess the repeatability and comparability of central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements obtained from the Galilei Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer (Galilei-DSA) and from ultrasonic pachymetry (USP) in normal eyes and in eyes following laser refractive surgery.

Methods

In this prospective observational study, 77 eyes of 39 patients with normal corneas and 39 eyes of 20 patients with prior laser refractive surgery were enrolled. All 116 eyes had three repeated measurements of central CCT with the Galilei-DSA first and then with USP by the same examiner. Reliability of both devices was assessed statistically, and CCT measurements by each were compared.

Results

The mean CCT measurement of normal eyes was 549.2 ± 30.5 μm and 548.5 ± 33.1 μm by the Galilei-DSA and USP respectively; the difference between the two modalities was −0.7  ± 7.1 μm (P = 0.365). In post-refractive surgery eyes, the mean CCT measured by the Galilei-DSA and USP was 500.4 ± 44.8 and 494.3 ± 50.3 respectively; the difference between the two devices was −6.2 ± 9.9 μm (P < 0.001). For the three repeated measurements, the mean standard deviation was 2 μm with the Galilei-DSA and 1.8 μm with USP in normal eyes, and 2.4 μm with the Galilei-DSA and 1.9 μm with USP in post-refractive surgery eyes.

Conclusion

The Galilei-DSA has high repeatability and excellent to moderate agreement with ultrasonic pachymetry when measuring CCT in normal and post-refractive surgery eyes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Swartz T, Marten L, Wang M (2007) Measuring the cornea: the latest developments in corneal topography. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 18(4):325–333

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hashemi H, Mehravaran S (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(10):1701–1707

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pflugfelder SC, Liu Z, Feuer W, Verm A (2002) Corneal thickness indices discriminate between keratoconus and contact lens-induced corneal thinning. Ophthalmology 109(12):2336–2341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Yaylali V, Kaufman SC, Thompson HW (1997) Corneal thickness measurements with the Orbscan Topography System and ultrasonic pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg 23(9):1345–1350

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bechmann M, Thiel MJ, Neubauer AS, Ullrich S, Ludwig K, Kenyon KR, Ulbig MW (2001) Central corneal thickness measurement with a retinal optical coherence tomography device versus standard ultrasonic pachymetry. Cornea 20(1):50–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 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(8):920–924

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ucakhan OO, Ozkan M, Kanpolat A (2006) Corneal thickness measurements in normal and keratoconic eyes: Pentacam comprehensive eye scanner versus noncontact specular microscopy and ultrasound pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg 32(6):970–977

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1(8476):307–310

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Menassa KN, Goggin JM, Bachmann TL (2008) Comparison and reproducibility of corneal thickness and curvature readings obtained by the Galilei and the Orbscan II analysis systems. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:1742–1747

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Barkana Y, Gerber Y, Elbaz U, Schwartz S, Ken-Dror G, Avni I, Zadok D (2005) Central corneal thickness measurement with the Pentacam Scheimpflug system, optical low-coherence reflectometry pachymeter, and ultrasound pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg 31(9):1729–1735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Muscat S, Parks S, Kemp E, Keating D (2002) Repeatability and reproducibility of macular thickness measurements with the Humphrey OCT system. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 43(2):490–495

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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):892–899

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hosseini HR, Katbab A, Khalili MR, Abtahi MB (2010) Comparison of corneal thickness measurements using Galilei, HR Pentacam, and ultrasound. Cornea 29(10):1091–1095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen S, Huang J, Wen D, Chen W, Huang D, Wang Q (2012) Measurement of central corneal thickness by high-resolution Scheimpflug imaging, Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography and ultrasound pachymetry. Acta Ophthalmol 90(5):449–455

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Al-Mezaine HS, Al-Amro SA, Kangave D, Sadaawy A, Wehaib TA, Al-Obeidan S (2008) Comparison between central corneal thickness measurements by oculus pentacam and ultrasonic pachymetry. Int Ophthalmol 28(5):333–338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ladi JS, Shah NA (2010) Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements with the Galilei dual Scheimpflug analyzer and ultrasound pachymetry. Indian J Ophthalmol 58(5):385–388

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):780–789

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ho T, Cheng AC, Rao SK et al (2007) Central corneal thickness measurements using Orbscan II, Visante, ultrasound, and Pentacam pachymetry after laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 33(7):1177–1182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Prospero Ponce CM, Rocha KM, Smith SD, Krueger RR (2009) 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. J Cataract Refract Surg 35(6):1055–1062

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Grewal DS, Brar GS, Grewal SP (2010) Assessment of central corneal thickness in normal, keratoconus, and post-laser in situ keratomileusis eyes using Scheimpflug imaging, spectral domain optical coherence tomography, and ultrasound pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg 36(6):954–964

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ciolino JB, Khachikian SS, Belin MW (2008) Comparison of corneal thickness measurements by ultrasound and scheimpflug photography in eyes that have undergone laser in situ keratomileusis. Am J Ophthalmol 145(1):75–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Faramarzi A, Karimian F, Jafarinasab MR, Jabbarpoor Bonyadi MH, Yaseri M (2010) Central corneal thickness measurements after myopic photorefractive keratectomy using Scheimpflug imaging, scanning-slit topography, and ultrasonic pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg 36(9):1543–1549

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tam ES, Rootman DS (2003) Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by specular microscopy, ultrasound pachymetry, and ultrasound biomicroscopy. J Cataract Refract Surg 29(6):1179–1184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

Supported in part by an unrestricted grant from Research to Prevent Blindness, New York, NY, USA.

Financial interest

None of the authors has financial or proprietary interest in a product, method, or material mentioned in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA

    Zaina N. Al-Mohtaseb, Li Wang & Mitchell P. Weikert

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, Baylor College of Medicine, 6565 Fannin, NC205, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Mitchell P. Weikert

Authors
  1. Zaina N. Al-Mohtaseb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Li Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mitchell P. Weikert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mitchell P. Weikert.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Al-Mohtaseb, Z.N., Wang, L. & Weikert, M.P. Repeatability and comparability of corneal thickness measurements obtained from Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer and from ultrasonic pachymetry. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 251, 1855–1860 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-013-2280-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-013-2280-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation