Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Ophthalmology 6/2018

01-12-2018 | Original Paper

Comparison of central corneal thickness with four different optical devices

Authors: Kuddusi Teberik, Mehmet Tahir Eski, Murat Kaya, Handan Ankaralı

Published in: International Ophthalmology | Issue 6/2018

Login to get access

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
Literature
1.
go back to reference 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 39:219–224CrossRef 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 39:219–224CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Mandell RB, Polse KA (1969) Keratoconus: spatial variation of corneal thickness as a diagnostic test. Arch Ophthalmol 82:182–188CrossRef Mandell RB, Polse KA (1969) Keratoconus: spatial variation of corneal thickness as a diagnostic test. Arch Ophthalmol 82:182–188CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Gherghel D, Hosking SL, Mantry S et al (2004) Corneal pachymetry in normal and keratoconic eyes: orbscan II versus ultrasound. J Cataract Refract Surg 30:1272–1277CrossRef Gherghel D, Hosking SL, Mantry S et al (2004) Corneal pachymetry in normal and keratoconic eyes: orbscan II versus ultrasound. J Cataract Refract Surg 30:1272–1277CrossRef
4.
go back to reference 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 37:442–446CrossRef 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 37:442–446CrossRef
5.
go back to reference 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 114:1779–1787CrossRef 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 114:1779–1787CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Tai LY, Khaw KW, Ng CM et al (2013) Central corneal thickness measurements with different imaging devices and ultrasound pachymetry. Cornea 32:766–771CrossRef Tai LY, Khaw KW, Ng CM et al (2013) Central corneal thickness measurements with different imaging devices and ultrasound pachymetry. Cornea 32:766–771CrossRef
7.
go back to reference 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 31:467–472PubMed 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 31:467–472PubMed
8.
go back to reference 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 38:409–413CrossRef 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 38:409–413CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Lee YG, Kim JH, Kim NR et al (2011) Comparison between Tonopachy and other tonometric and pachymetric devices. Optom Vis Sci 88:843–849CrossRef Lee YG, Kim JH, Kim NR et al (2011) Comparison between Tonopachy and other tonometric and pachymetric devices. Optom Vis Sci 88:843–849CrossRef
10.
go back to reference 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 94:433–437CrossRef 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 94:433–437CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Lattimore MR Jr (1996) Influence of extended soft contact lens wear on the comparative measurement of central corneal thickness. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 74:239–242CrossRef Lattimore MR Jr (1996) Influence of extended soft contact lens wear on the comparative measurement of central corneal thickness. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 74:239–242CrossRef
12.
go back to reference 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 90:449–455CrossRef 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 90:449–455CrossRef
13.
go back to reference 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 32:460–463CrossRef 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 32:460–463CrossRef
14.
go back to reference 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 34:1906–1912CrossRef 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 34:1906–1912CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Solomon OD (1999) Corneal indentation during ultrasonic pachometry. Cornea 18:214–215CrossRef Solomon OD (1999) Corneal indentation during ultrasonic pachometry. Cornea 18:214–215CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Santodomingo-Rubido J, Mallen EA, Gilmartin B et al (2002) A new non-contact optical device for ocular biometry. Br J Ophthalmol 86:458–462CrossRef Santodomingo-Rubido J, Mallen EA, Gilmartin B et al (2002) A new non-contact optical device for ocular biometry. Br J Ophthalmol 86:458–462CrossRef
17.
go back to reference 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 33:1701–1707CrossRef 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 33:1701–1707CrossRef
18.
go back to reference 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 28:333–338CrossRef 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 28:333–338CrossRef
19.
go back to reference 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 32:89–94CrossRef 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 32:89–94CrossRef
20.
go back to reference 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 113:937–941CrossRef 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 113:937–941CrossRef
21.
go back to reference 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 31:1729–1735CrossRef 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 31:1729–1735CrossRef
22.
go back to reference 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 24:920–924CrossRef 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 24:920–924CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Kniestedt C, Lin S, Choe J et al (2005) Clinical comparison of contour and applanation tonometry and their relationship to pachymetry. Arch Ophthalmol 123:1532–1537CrossRef Kniestedt C, Lin S, Choe J et al (2005) Clinical comparison of contour and applanation tonometry and their relationship to pachymetry. Arch Ophthalmol 123:1532–1537CrossRef
24.
go back to reference 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 237:220–224CrossRef 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 237:220–224CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Chatterjee A, Shah S, Bessant DA et al (1997) Reduction in intraocular pressure after excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy. Correlation with pretreatment myopia. Ophthalmology 104:355–359CrossRef Chatterjee A, Shah S, Bessant DA et al (1997) Reduction in intraocular pressure after excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy. Correlation with pretreatment myopia. Ophthalmology 104:355–359CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparison of central corneal thickness with four different optical devices
Authors
Kuddusi Teberik
Mehmet Tahir Eski
Murat Kaya
Handan Ankaralı
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
International Ophthalmology / Issue 6/2018
Print ISSN: 0165-5701
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2630
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-017-0736-7

Other articles of this Issue 6/2018

International Ophthalmology 6/2018 Go to the issue