Comparison of central corneal thickness: ultrasound pachymetry versus slit-lamp optical coherence tomography, specular microscopy, and Orbscan

Comparison of central corneal thickness: ultrasound pachymetry versus slit-lamp optical coherence tomography, specular microscopy, and Orbscan

Wassia A Khaja, Sandeep Grover, Amy T Kelmenson, Lee R Ferguson, Kumar Sambhav, Kakarla V Chalam Department of Ophthalmology, University of Florida, College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA Background: Central corneal thickness (CCT) can be measured by using contact and non-contact methods. Ultr...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Khaja WA, Grover S, Kelmenson AT, Ferguson LR, Sambhav K, Chalam KV
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2015
Materias:
Ophthalmology
RE1-994
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/3a013fbfffa541d3a636846f72b44108
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
id oai:doaj.org-article:3a013fbfffa541d3a636846f72b44108
record_format dspace
spelling oai:doaj.org-article:3a013fbfffa541d3a636846f72b441082021-12-02T06:20:44ZComparison of central corneal thickness: ultrasound pachymetry versus slit-lamp optical coherence tomography, specular microscopy, and Orbscan1177-5483https://doaj.org/article/3a013fbfffa541d3a636846f72b441082015-06-01T00:00:00Zhttp://www.dovepress.com/comparison-of-central-corneal-thickness-ultrasound-pachymetry-versus-s-peer-reviewed-article-OPTHhttps://doaj.org/toc/1177-5483Wassia A Khaja, Sandeep Grover, Amy T Kelmenson, Lee R Ferguson, Kumar Sambhav, Kakarla V Chalam Department of Ophthalmology, University of Florida, College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA Background: Central corneal thickness (CCT) can be measured by using contact and non-contact methods. Ultrasound pachymetry (US pachymetry) is a contact method for measuring CCT and is perhaps the most commonly used method. However, non-contact methods like scanning slit topography (Orbscan II), slit-lamp optical coherence tomography (SL-OCT), and specular microscopy are also used. Not many studies have correlated the measurement of CCT with all four modalities. The purpose of this study was to compare and correlate the CCT measurements obtained by US pachymetry with SL-OCT, specular microscopy, and Orbscan. Method: This is a prospective, comparative study done in an institutional setting. Thirty-two eyes of 32 subjects with no known ocular disease and best-corrected visual acuity of 20/20 were enrolled. CCT measurements were obtained using SL-OCT, specular microscopy, scanning slit topography (Orbscan), and US pachymetry. Three measurements were made with each instrument by the same operator. Mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation were calculated for CCT measurements acquired by the four measurement devices. Bland–Altman plot was constructed to determine the agreements between the CCT measurements obtained by different equipment. Results: The mean CCT was 548.16±48.68 µm by US pachymetry. In comparison, CCT averaged 546.36±44.17 µm by SL-OCT, 557.61±49.92 µm by specular microscopy, and 551.03±48.96 µm by Orbscan for all subjects. Measurements by the various modalities were strongly correlated. Correlations (r2) of CCT, as measured by US pachymetry compared with other modalities, were: SL-OCT (r2=0.98, P<0.0001), specular microscopy (r2=0.98, P<0.0001), and Orbscan (r2=0.96, P<0.0001). All modalities had a linear correlation with US pachymetry measurements. Conclusion: In subjects with healthy corneas, SL-OCT, specular microscopy, and Orbscan (with correction factor) can be used interchangeably with US pachymetry in certain clinical settings. The four modalities showed significant linear correlations with one another. Keywords: central corneal thickness, pachymetry, slit-lamp optical coherence tomography, specular microscopy, OrbscanKhaja WAGrover SKelmenson ATFerguson LRSambhav KChalam KVDove Medical PressarticleOphthalmologyRE1-994ENClinical Ophthalmology, Vol 2015, Iss default, Pp 1065-1070 (2015)
institution DOAJ
collection DOAJ
language EN
topic Ophthalmology
RE1-994
spellingShingle Ophthalmology
RE1-994
Khaja WA
Grover S
Kelmenson AT
Ferguson LR
Sambhav K
Chalam KV
Comparison of central corneal thickness: ultrasound pachymetry versus slit-lamp optical coherence tomography, specular microscopy, and Orbscan
description Wassia A Khaja, Sandeep Grover, Amy T Kelmenson, Lee R Ferguson, Kumar Sambhav, Kakarla V Chalam Department of Ophthalmology, University of Florida, College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA Background: Central corneal thickness (CCT) can be measured by using contact and non-contact methods. Ultrasound pachymetry (US pachymetry) is a contact method for measuring CCT and is perhaps the most commonly used method. However, non-contact methods like scanning slit topography (Orbscan II), slit-lamp optical coherence tomography (SL-OCT), and specular microscopy are also used. Not many studies have correlated the measurement of CCT with all four modalities. The purpose of this study was to compare and correlate the CCT measurements obtained by US pachymetry with SL-OCT, specular microscopy, and Orbscan. Method: This is a prospective, comparative study done in an institutional setting. Thirty-two eyes of 32 subjects with no known ocular disease and best-corrected visual acuity of 20/20 were enrolled. CCT measurements were obtained using SL-OCT, specular microscopy, scanning slit topography (Orbscan), and US pachymetry. Three measurements were made with each instrument by the same operator. Mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation were calculated for CCT measurements acquired by the four measurement devices. Bland–Altman plot was constructed to determine the agreements between the CCT measurements obtained by different equipment. Results: The mean CCT was 548.16±48.68 µm by US pachymetry. In comparison, CCT averaged 546.36±44.17 µm by SL-OCT, 557.61±49.92 µm by specular microscopy, and 551.03±48.96 µm by Orbscan for all subjects. Measurements by the various modalities were strongly correlated. Correlations (r2) of CCT, as measured by US pachymetry compared with other modalities, were: SL-OCT (r2=0.98, P<0.0001), specular microscopy (r2=0.98, P<0.0001), and Orbscan (r2=0.96, P<0.0001). All modalities had a linear correlation with US pachymetry measurements. Conclusion: In subjects with healthy corneas, SL-OCT, specular microscopy, and Orbscan (with correction factor) can be used interchangeably with US pachymetry in certain clinical settings. The four modalities showed significant linear correlations with one another. Keywords: central corneal thickness, pachymetry, slit-lamp optical coherence tomography, specular microscopy, Orbscan
format article
author Khaja WA
Grover S
Kelmenson AT
Ferguson LR
Sambhav K
Chalam KV
author_facet Khaja WA
Grover S
Kelmenson AT
Ferguson LR
Sambhav K
Chalam KV
author_sort Khaja WA
title Comparison of central corneal thickness: ultrasound pachymetry versus slit-lamp optical coherence tomography, specular microscopy, and Orbscan
title_short Comparison of central corneal thickness: ultrasound pachymetry versus slit-lamp optical coherence tomography, specular microscopy, and Orbscan
title_full Comparison of central corneal thickness: ultrasound pachymetry versus slit-lamp optical coherence tomography, specular microscopy, and Orbscan
title_fullStr Comparison of central corneal thickness: ultrasound pachymetry versus slit-lamp optical coherence tomography, specular microscopy, and Orbscan
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of central corneal thickness: ultrasound pachymetry versus slit-lamp optical coherence tomography, specular microscopy, and Orbscan
title_sort comparison of central corneal thickness: ultrasound pachymetry versus slit-lamp optical coherence tomography, specular microscopy, and orbscan
publisher Dove Medical Press
publishDate 2015
url https://doaj.org/article/3a013fbfffa541d3a636846f72b44108
work_keys_str_mv AT khajawa comparisonofcentralcornealthicknessultrasoundpachymetryversusslitlampopticalcoherencetomographyspecularmicroscopyandnbsporbscan
AT grovers comparisonofcentralcornealthicknessultrasoundpachymetryversusslitlampopticalcoherencetomographyspecularmicroscopyandnbsporbscan
AT kelmensonat comparisonofcentralcornealthicknessultrasoundpachymetryversusslitlampopticalcoherencetomographyspecularmicroscopyandnbsporbscan
AT fergusonlr comparisonofcentralcornealthicknessultrasoundpachymetryversusslitlampopticalcoherencetomographyspecularmicroscopyandnbsporbscan
AT sambhavk comparisonofcentralcornealthicknessultrasoundpachymetryversusslitlampopticalcoherencetomographyspecularmicroscopyandnbsporbscan
AT chalamkv comparisonofcentralcornealthicknessultrasoundpachymetryversusslitlampopticalcoherencetomographyspecularmicroscopyandnbsporbscan
_version_ 1718399927944478720

Ejemplares similares