Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Ophthalmology
Published in: International Ophthalmology 7/2020

01-07-2020 | Ultrasound | Original Paper

Measurement of central corneal thickness using Orbscan 3, Pentacam HR and ultrasound pachymetry in normal eyes

Authors: Hesham Mohamed Gharieb, Doaa Maamoun Ashour, Mohamed Ibrahim Saleh, Ihab Saad Othman

Published in: International Ophthalmology | Issue 7/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the agreement between Orbscan 3, Pentacam HR and ultrasound pachymetry (Palm Scan AP 2000) in measuring central corneal thickness.

Methods

Prospective observational cross-sectional study of ninety-two eyes of 48 patients with normal corneas was conducted. Central corneal thickness was measured via Pentacam HR, Orbscan 3 and ultrasound pachymetry. Bland–Altman analysis was used to demonstrate agreement between various methods.

Results

Ninety-two eyes of 46 subjects were enrolled. The mean age was 29.67 years (18–59). The average measurements of central corneal thickness were 545.73 ± 29.35 μm, 549.34 ± 29.14 μm and 545.78 ± 31.48 μm for the Pentacam HR, Orbscan and ultrasound pachymetry, respectively. The three devices measurements are closely correlated, with Pearson correlation coefficient ranging from 0.868 to 0.929. The 95 % limits of agreement were 25.2 to − 18 μm between Orbscan and Pentacam central corneal thickness, 25.2 to − 25.7 μm between Pentacam and pachymetry central corneal thickness and 34.4 to − 27.2 μm between Orbscan and pachymetry central corneal thickness.

Conclusion

In spite of advancement of Orbscan 3, still there are wide agreement limits between CCT measurements obtained via Orbscan 3, Pentacam HR and ultrasound pachymetry; thus, interchangeable use in clinical practice is not recommended.
Literature
1.
Randleman JB, Woodward M, Lynn MJ, Stulting RD (2008) Risk assessment for ectasia after corneal refractive surgery. Ophthalmology 115:37–50CrossRef
2.
Doughty MJ, Zaman ML (2000) Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta-analysis approach. Surv Ophthalmol 44:367–408CrossRef
3.
Potop V, Corbu C, Coviltir V et al (2019) The importance of corneal assessment in a glaucoma suspect—a review. Rom J Ophthalmol 63(4):321–326CrossRef
4.
Marsich MW, Bullimore MA (2000) The repeatability of corneal thickness measures. Cornea 19(6):792–795CrossRef
5.
Rainer G, Petternel V, Findl O et al (2002) Comparison of ultrasound pachymetry and partial coherence interferometry in the measurement of central corneal thickness. J Cataract Refract Surg 28:2142–2145CrossRef
6.
Rainer G, Findl O, Petternel V et al (2004) Central corneal thickness measurements with partial coherence interferometry, ultrasound, and the orbscan system. Ophthalmology 111:875–879CrossRef
7.
Yaylali V, Kaufman SC, Thompson HW (1997) Corneal thickness measurements with the orbscan topography system and ultrasonic pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg 23:1345–1350CrossRef
8.
Cairns G, McGhee CNJ (2005) Orbscan computerized topography: attributes, applications, and limitations. J Cataract Refract Surg 31:205–209CrossRef
9.
Doughty MJ, Jonuscheit S (2010) The orbscan acoustic (correction) factor for central corneal thickness measures of normal human corneas. Eye Contact Lens 36:106–115CrossRef
10.
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 9:1065–1070PubMedPubMedCentral
11.
12.
13.
Sinjab MM (2015) Step by step reading pentacam topography. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers, New Delhi, pp 6–11
14.
Can E, Eser-Ozturk H, Duran M, Cetinkaya T, Arıturk N (2019) Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements using different imaging devices and ultrasound pachymetry. Indian J Ophthalmol 67:496–499CrossRef
15.
Bunce C (2009) Correlation, agreement, and Bland–Altman analysis: statistical analysis of method comparison studies. Am J Ophthalmol 148:4–6CrossRef
16.
Kumar M, Shetty R, Jayadev C, Rao HL, Dutta D (2017) Repeatability and agreement of five imaging systems for measuring anterior segment parameters in healthy eyes. Indian J Ophthalmol 65(4):288–294CrossRef
17.
Lanza M, Paolillo E, Gironi Carnevale UA et al (2015) Central corneal thickness evaluation in healthy eyes with three different optical devices. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 38(6):409–413CrossRef
18.
Teberik K, Eski MT, Kaya M, Ankaralı H (2018) Comparison of central corneal thickness with four different optical devices. Int Ophthalmol 38(6):2363–2369CrossRef
19.
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):920–924CrossRef
20.
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):1729–1735CrossRef
21.
22.
Sadoughi MM, Einollahi B, Einollahi N, Rezaei J, Roshandel D, Feizi S (2015) Measurement of central corneal thickness using ultrasound pachymetry and orbscan ii in normal eyes. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 10(1):4–9CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Measurement of central corneal thickness using Orbscan 3, Pentacam HR and ultrasound pachymetry in normal eyes
Authors
Hesham Mohamed Gharieb
Doaa Maamoun Ashour
Mohamed Ibrahim Saleh
Ihab Saad Othman
Publication date
01-07-2020
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
International Ophthalmology / Issue 7/2020
Print ISSN: 0165-5701
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2630
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-020-01344-1

Other articles of this Issue 7/2020

International Ophthalmology 7/2020 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Early diagnosis of subclinical keratoconus by wavefront parameters using Scheimpflug, Placido and Hartmann–Shack based devices

Original Paper

Effect of corneal marking features on toric intraocular lens alignment

Original Paper

Curved single-plane clear corneal incision made under anterior chamber collapse by aqueous humor aspiration prevents leakage after cataract surgery

Original Paper

A retrospective study comparing DALK and PKP in the treatment of necrotizing stromal keratitis

Original Paper

Patients’ perception of glaucoma diagnosis practice: Results from a survey of glaucoma patients in North India

Original Paper

The 3-year outcomes of corneal tattooing for severely disfigured corneas