Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by Orbscan II and Pentacam after corneal refractive surgery

Matsuda, Jumpei; Hieda, Osamu; Kinoshita, Shigeru

doi:10.1007/s10384-008-0550-x

Cited by 25 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(44 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For both rotating Scheimpflug imaging and FD-OCT, they calculated the distance between the anterior and posterior corneal surfaces and transformed it into corneal pachymetry. These two systems yield highly reliable measurements of corneal thickness in healthy eyes, 17)20, 47 although they can be affected if the cornea is not clear or if there is other optical interference (Matsuda et al 2008). The differences we and others report between the optical methods and UP in different research settings may be mainly attributed to sources of measurement variability inherent in UP itself.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement of central corneal thickness by high‐resolution Scheimpflug imaging, Fourier‐domain optical coherence tomography and ultrasound pachymetry

Chen

Huang

Wen

et al. 2012

Acta Ophthalmologica

113

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT.Purpose: To compare the repeatability and reproducibility of central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements by high-resolution (HR) rotating Scheimpflug imaging and Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography (FD-OCT). CCT measurements were compared to those determined by ultrasound pachymetry (UP). Methods:In 35 healthy eyes, intra-observer repeatability for HR Scheimpflug (Pentacam) and FD-OCT (RTVue) systems was determined in consecutive images taken by an observer in the shortest time possible. Imaging was repeated again by a second observer to evaluate inter-observer reproducibility. The CCT measurements were compared among Scheimpflug, FD-OCT and UP images.Results: Mean coefficients of repeatability were 0.48% for Scheimpflug and 0.26% for FD-OCT. For Scheimpflug, the coefficient of inter-operator reproducibility was 0.87%. For FD-OCT, the coefficient of inter-operator reproducibility was 0.45%. The CCT measurements by Scheimpflug, OCT and UP images were (mean ± standard deviation) 521.7 ± 27.6 lm, 510.8 ± 28.6 lm and 516.5 ± 27.6 lm, respectively. The differences between instruments were statistically significant. The 95% limits of agreement in CCT were )0.7 to 22.5 lm for Pentacam-OCT, )13.4 to 24.0 lm for Pentacam-UP and )26.7 to 15.4 lm for OCT-UP. There was a high degree of correlation between CCT measured by all 3 methods.Conclusion: Noncontact measurements of CCT with HR Scheimpflug and FD-OCT systems yielded excellent repeatability and reproducibility and can be used interchangeably. Although both devices were comparable with UP; in clinical practice, the measurements acquired by optical modalities are not directly interchangeable with UP measurements.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement of central corneal thickness by high‐resolution Scheimpflug imaging, Fourier‐domain optical coherence tomography and ultrasound pachymetry

Chen

Huang

Wen

et al. 2012

Acta Ophthalmologica

113

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Kor ne a cer ra hi le rin de ame li yat ön ce si, ame li yat es na sında ve ame li yat son ra sında mer ke zi kor ne a ka lın lı ğı-nın (MKK) de ğer len di ril me si, [1][2][3][4] kon takt lens kulla nı cı la rın da kor ne a sağ lı ğı nın ve de ği şik lik le ri nin ta ki bi 5,6 ile glo ko mun ta nı ve te da vi si gi bi bir çok kli nik du rum da MKK önem li bir gös ter ge dir. [7][8][9][10] Gü nü müz de MKK öl çü mün de al tın stan dart ola rak ka bul edi len ve dün ya ça pın da yay gın bir biçim de kul la nı lan me tod ul tra so nik pa ki met re dir.…”

Section: Ophthalmologyunclassified

“…Do la yı sıy la iş le mi ger çek leş tiren tek nis ye nin tec rü be si, ul tra so nik pa ki met ri le ri so nuç la rı nı et ki le ye bil mek te dir. 2,3,5 Ul tra so nik bi yo mik ros ko pi (UBM), yük sek fre kans lı ses dal ga la rı nın kul la nı mıy la gö zün ön seg men ti ne ait ke sit sel gö rün tü le rin el de edil di ği de ğer li bir gö rün tü le me yön te mi dir. Bu tek nik le ön seg men te ait bir çok mor fo lo jik ve pa to lo jik özel lik ya nın da [11][12][13][14] MKK öl çü mü de ya pı la bil mek te dir.…”

Section: Ophthalmologyunclassified

“…Bu yön tem ler, kor ne a ya te ma sın ne den oldu ğu de za van taj lar dan uzak ol ma la rı nın ya nı sı ra, kor ne a ka lın lı ğı nın de ğer len di ril me sin de de da ha ob jek tif bir or tam oluş ma sı nı sağ la mış lar dır. 1,2,5 Son yıl lar da kul la nı mı git tik çe yay gın la şan ve ye ni bir tek no lo ji olan op tik ko he rens to mog ra fi (OKT), can lı or tam lar da no nin va ziv ke sit sel in ce leme le re ola nak ta nı mak ta dır. Gü nü müz de bu tekno lo ji of tal mo lo ji ala nın da da ha çok re ti na do ku la rı nın in ce len me si ama cıy la kul la nıl mak tadır.…”

Section: Ophthalmologyunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Stratus Optical Coherence Tomography and Ultrasound Biomicroscopy for Measurement of the Central Corneal Thickness

Türk¹,

Erdöl²,

Karagüzel³

et al. 2010

Turkiye Klinikleri J Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ÖZET Amaç: Birçok göz hastalığının değerlendirilmesinde merkezi kornea kalınlığının (MKK) ölçümü önemli bir rol oynamaktadır. Biz bu çalışmada sağlıklı kornealarda Stratus optik koherens tomografi ile ölçülen MKK'yı ultrasonik biyomikroskopi ile karşılaştırmayı amaçladık. Anah tar Ke li me ler: Biometri; kornea; optik koherens tomografi; akustik biyomikroskopi ABS TRACT Objective: Measurement of central corneal thickness (CCT) plays an important role in the assessment of various ocular diseases. In this study we aimed to compare the measurements of the central corneal thickness by Stratus optical coherence tomography with ultrasound biomicroscopy in the healthy corneas. Material and Methods: A total of 54 eyes of 42 (19 females, 23 males) cases aged between 35 and 83 years underwent CCT measurements with Stratus OCT and UBM. All eyes were examined first with Stratus OCT and then by UBM. Pearson's correlation analysis and paired t-test were used to evaluate the relationship between the device results. Measurements were also compared by Bland-Altman analysis. Results: The mean CCT measured by Stratus OCT and UBM were 521.31±29.98 and 525.56±30.3 μm, respectively. While the mean difference between two devices were 4.24±7.05 μm, the measurements of two devices were significantly correlated (Pearson's coefficient = 0.973, p<0.0005). In Bland-Altman analysis, there was a high level of agreement between Stratus OCT and UBM. Conclusion: Corneal thickness measurements are influenced by the device of measurement. Generally, Stratus OCT underestimates corneal thickness compared to that measured with UBM. However the differences between two devices are not clinically significant. For this reason, measurement of the CCT can be performed by a standard retinal OCT device which is an accurate, noninvasive, and repeatable technique.

show abstract

“…the Orbscan measures being less than those obtained by US. [89] On the other hand, AF of 0.92 has been reported to overestimate CCT in the thickest extreme of corneas. [510]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Central corneal thickness measurement using ultrasonic pachymetry, rotating scheimpflug camera, and scanning-slit topography exclusively in thin non-keratoconic corneas

Mohammadpour¹,

Mohammad²,

Karimi³

2016

J Ophthalmic Vis Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:To evaluate the agreement among Pentacam, Orbscan and ultrasound (US) pachymetry for measurement of central corneal thickness (CCT) in thin corneas with normal topographic pattern.Methods:We included 88 eyes of 44 refractive surgery candidates with thinnest pachymetric readings of 500 micrometers (μm) or less on Orbscan, a normal topographic pattern, no sign of keratoconus, and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/20. Pentacam, Orbscan and US were performed in one session by the same examiner. Exclusion criteria were history of ocular surgery, topographic abnormalities suggesting forme fruste keratoconus or keratectasia, and recent contact lens wear.Results:The difference in CCT measurements by US pachymetry and Orbscan II [using an acoustic factor (AF) of 0.92] ranged from −34 to +34 μm. The difference between the thinnest point and central readings measured by US reached 16 μm with Orbscan II (AF: 0.92) and 2 μm with Pentacam. Mean differences between the employed devices were 0.2 μm for Pentacam versus US (P = 0.727), 30.1 μm for uncorrected Orbscan versus US (P < 0.001), 10.4 μm for Orbscan II (AF = 0.92) versus US (P < 0.001), and 0.2 μm for Orbscan II (AF = 0.94) versus US (P = 0.851).Conclusion:In normal thin corneas, Pentacam demonstrated better agreement with US pachymetry as compared to corrected Orbscan readings. Results achieved by Orbscan were better consistent with US pachymetry using an AF of 0.94. We speculate that a dynamically graded AF in reverse proportion to CCT constitutes a better approach for correcting Orbscan measurements.

show abstract

Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by Orbscan II and Pentacam after corneal refractive surgery

Abstract: The Orbscan II measurement values of postoperative corneas tended to be thinner than the theoretical values, but not those of the Pentacam.

Cited by 25 publications

References 30 publications

Measurement of central corneal thickness by high‐resolution Scheimpflug imaging, Fourier‐domain optical coherence tomography and ultrasound pachymetry

Measurement of central corneal thickness by high‐resolution Scheimpflug imaging, Fourier‐domain optical coherence tomography and ultrasound pachymetry

Comparison of Stratus Optical Coherence Tomography and Ultrasound Biomicroscopy for Measurement of the Central Corneal Thickness

Central corneal thickness measurement using ultrasonic pachymetry, rotating scheimpflug camera, and scanning-slit topography exclusively in thin non-keratoconic corneas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About