Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Central corneal thickness measurements in phakic, pseudophakic, and aphakic children with ultrasound pachymetry and different non-contact devices

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aims

Evidence for choosing a satisfactory device for central corneal thickness (CCT) measurement in children particularly pseudophakic and aphakic ones is insufficient. The aim of this study is to compare four differently measured CCTs obtained using ultrasound pachymetry (UP), Pentacam, partial coherence interferometry (PCI), and specular microscopy (SM) in phakic, pseudophakic, and aphakic children and assess the agreement between the six pairs of the methods.

Methods

Children with history of cataract surgery at age six or younger and phakic children were recruited into this study. CCT was measured using UP (Optikon 2000, Rome, Italy), Pentacam (Oculus Inc, Wetzlar, Germany), PCI (IOLMaster 700, Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany), and SM (Topcon SP-3000P; Topcon Corporation, Japan).

Results

One-hundred two eyes (53 phakic, 29 pseudophakic, and 20 aphakic eyes) were included. The mean ages (± SD) of phakic, pseudophakic, and aphakic cases were 9.75 (± 3.3), 9.9 (± 2.3), and 8.2 (± 2.8) years, respectively. The mean CCTs (± SE) for phakic children using Pentacam, PCI, UP, and SM were 549.7 (± 5.0), 546.5 (± 4.5), 565.9 (± 5.5), and 506.2 (± 4.4) μm, respectively, for pseudophakic cases were 570.1 (± 6.4), 565.0 (± 6.1), 571.9 (± 6.3), and 524.3 (± 6.3) μm, respectively, and for aphakic participants were 635.3 (± 14.2), 635.4 (± 14.5), 649.0 (± 13.5), and 589.1 (± 13.3) μm, respectively.

Conclusion

Compared to Pentacam and PCI, SM underestimated CCT particularly in phakic and pseudophakic children, whereas UP slightly overestimated CCT especially in phakic and aphakic children. Furthermore, Pentacam and PCI had the closest agreement. By contrast, SM had the poorest agreement with the other three methods.

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
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data will be available upon reasonable requests.

References

  1. Re Novak-Stroligo M, Alpeza-Dunato Z, Kovacević D, Caljkusić-Mance T (2011) Corneal thickness in congenital glaucoma. Coll Antropol 35(Suppl 2):305–306

    Google Scholar 

  2. Simsek T, Mutluay AH, Elgin U, Gursel R, Batman A (2006) Glaucoma and increased central corneal thickness in aphakic and pseudophakic patients after congenital cataract surgery. Br J Ophthalmol 90(9):1103–1106

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Fern KD, Manny RE, Gwiazda J et al (2012) Intraocular pressure and central corneal thickness in the COMET cohort. Optom Vis Sci 89(8):1225–1234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Copt RP, Thomas R, Mermoud A (1999) Corneal thickness in ocular hypertension, primary open-angle glaucoma, and normal tension glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 117(1):14–16

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Borrego-Sanz L, Sáenz-Francés F, Bermudez-Vallecilla M, Morales-Fernández L, Martínez-de-la-Casa JM, Santos-Bueso E, Jañez L, García-Feijoo J (2014) Agreement between central corneal thickness measured using Pentacam, ultrasound pachymetry, specular microscopy and optic biometer Lenstar LS 900 and the influence of intraocular pressure. Ophthalmologica 231(4):226–235

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kawana K, Tokunaga T, Miyata K, Okamoto F, Kiuchi T, Oshika T (2004) Comparison of corneal thickness measurements using Orbscan II, non-contact specular microscopy, and ultrasonic pachymetry in eyes after laser in situ keratomileusis. Br J Ophthalmol 88(4):466–468

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gokcinar NB, Yumusak E, Ornek N, Yorubulut S, Onaran Z (2019) Agreement and repeatability of central corneal thickness measurements by four different optical devices and an ultrasound pachymeter. Int Ophthalmol 39(7):1589–1598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tai LY, Khaw KW, Ng CM, Subrayan V (2013) Central corneal thickness measurements with different imaging devices and ultrasound pachymetry. Cornea 32(6):766–771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Çevik SG, Duman R, Çevik MT, Kıvanç SA, Akova-Budak B, Perente I, Duman R (2016) Comparison of central corneal thickness estimated by an ultrasonic pachymeter and non-contact specular microscopy. Arq Bras Oftalmol 79(5):312–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Xiao W, Liang XF, Sun JJ (2011) Changes of corneal central thickness of aphakia following congenital cataract surgery under the first six months of life. Int J Ophthalmol 4(1):78–80

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Nam SM, Im CY, Lee HK, Kim EK, Kim TI, Seo KY (2010) Accuracy of RTVue optical coherence tomography, pentacam, and ultrasonic pachymetry for the measurement of central corneal thickness. Ophthalmology 117(11):2096–2103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Erdur SK, Demirci G, Dikkaya F, Kocabora MS, Ozsutcu M (2018) Comparison of central corneal thickness with ultrasound pachymetry, noncontact specular microscopy and spectral domain optical coherence tomography. Semin Ophthalmol 33(6):782–787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Al-Ageel S, Al-Muammar AM (2009) Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by pentacam, noncontact specular microscope, and ultrasound pachymetry in normal and post-LASIK eyes. Saudi J Ophthalmol 23(3–4):181–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Razeghinejad MR, Tajbakhsh Z, Nowroozzadeh MH (2017) Agreement in central corneal thickness measurements between optical and ultrasound pachymeters in patients with primary congenital glaucoma. Eye (Lond) 31(9):1382

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Jiang JY, Ong K (2019) Variability of central corneal thickness measurements-comparing zeiss IOL master and tomey corneal specular microscope. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila) 8(4):275–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Babbar S, Martel M, Martel J (2017) Comparison of central corneal thickness by ultrasound pachymetry, optical coherence tomography and specular microscopy. New Front Ophthalmol 3(3):1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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  Google Scholar 

  18. Maloca PM, Studer HP, Ambrósio R Jr, Goldblum D, Rothenbuehler S, Barthelmes D, Zweifel S, Scholl HPN, Balaskas K, Tufail A, Hasler PW (2018) Interdevice variability of central corneal thickness measurement. PLoS One 13(9):e0203884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rashid RF, Farhood QK (2016) Measurement of central corneal thickness by ultrasonic pachymeter and oculus pentacam in patients with well-controlled glaucoma: hospital-based comparative study. Clin Ophthalmol 10:359–364

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Uçakhan 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  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by Shiraz University of Medical Sciences [Grant No. 10398 and 11958].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

    Majid Farvardin, Anis Shamsi & Mohammad-Hasan Jalalpour

  2. Poostchi Ophthalmology Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

    Majid Farvardin, Anis Shamsi & Mohammad-Hasan Jalalpour

  3. Poostchi Eye Clinic, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

    Amir Norouzpour

Authors
  1. Majid Farvardin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anis Shamsi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amir Norouzpour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mohammad-Hasan Jalalpour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MF contributed to funding acquisition, study design, data collection and analysis supervision, manuscript review and edit. AS contributed to data acquisition. AN contributed to data analysis, data interpretation, manuscript preparation. MHJ contributed to data acquisition.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amir Norouzpour.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest has been presented.

Consent to participate

Approval was obtained from the ethics committee of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences [No. 10398 and 11958]. The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was taken from a parent of each participants.

Consent to publish

All the authors approved this version to be published, and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Farvardin, M., Shamsi, A., Norouzpour, A. et al. Central corneal thickness measurements in phakic, pseudophakic, and aphakic children with ultrasound pachymetry and different non-contact devices. Int Ophthalmol 42, 65–72 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-021-02000-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-021-02000-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation