Accuracy of Cirrus HD-OCT and Topcon SP-3000P for measuring central corneal thickness

Abstract

PurposeTo compare and analyze the interchangeability of three measuring systems, each based on a different technique, for central corneal thickness (CCT) analysis.MethodsCCT measurements were measured using optical coherence tomography (OCT), non-contact specular microscopy (NCSM), and ultrasonic pachymetry (USP) in 60 eyes of 60 healthy patients with a mean age of 66.5 ± 15.0 years and a mean spherical equivalent of 0.43 ± 1.14 D. Analysis of variations in measurement concordance and correlation among the three different methods were performed. Comparison of CCT measurements were done using Bland–Altman plots (with bias and 95% confidence intervals), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and paired t-student analysis.ResultsMean CCT values were: 549.20 ± 26.91 μm for USP (range 503–618 μm), 514.20 ± 27.49 μm for NCSM (range 456–586 μm) and 542.80 ± 25.56 μm for OCT (range 486–605 μm). CCT values obtained with NCMS were significantly lower than those obtained with OCT and USP methods. NCMS CCT value was 36.08 ± 10.72 μm lower than USP value (p < 0.05), and NCMS CCT value was 7.88 ± 8.86 μm lower than OCT value (p < 0.05). ICC between USP–NCSM pair was 0.488 and 0.909 between USP–OCT pair.ConclusionOCT and UPS offered highly comparable results, whereas NCSM offered lower mean CCT values compared to the other two methods. Therefore, NCSM should not be considered a reliable method for measuring CCT and should rather be considered for assessing longitudinal changes in the same patient.

Study of central corneal thickness using non-contact techniques: Specular microscopy (Nidek CEM-530), corneal tomography (Pentacam HR), and optical coherence tomography (Cirrus HD-OCT 5000) in healthy adult patients

“…In spite of the different protocols followed in each study (10,13,14), most have found a high resolution between the analyzed devices, as in the present study. This high correlation between devices was also reported by other authors, such as Cevik et al (11), who compared ultrasonic pachymetry and specular biomicroscopy.…”

“…Weiser et al (15) and Calvo et al (10) have reported that OCT and contact ultrasonic pachymetry provide similar values. On the other hand, and in contrast with our results, De Bernardo (13) and Fujioka (14) found slightly lower pachymetric values with the specular microscope compared to the Pentacam topography.…”

“…This study compares central corneal pachymetry values obtained with several non-invasive devices. There are multiple previous publications that analyses the correlation between different devices (10)(11)(12)(13)(14).…”

Central corneal thickness measurement with Cirrus HD-OCT and Topcon SP-3000P

“…We read with great interest the article by Calvo-Sanz et al comparing specular microscopy (SM) with OCT and ultrasound pachymetry (USP). 1 …”

Efecto de la dexametasona tópica preoperatoria en el endotelio corneal y en biomarcadores inflamatorios de cámara anterior en la cirugía de la catarata del paciente diabético

“…Los valores de la paquimetría corneal obtenida mediante MENC son habitualmente menores que los determinados mediante ultrasonidos 73,[229][230][231] . Este dato puede que influya en los resultados, ya que la diferencia en el valor de la medición, puede hacer que un valor límite en el caso de la determinación mediante ultrasonidos, se convierta en estadisticamente significativo en la visita inicial.…”