Publication:
Agreement between central corneal thickness measured using pentacam, ultrasound pachymetry, specular microscopy and optic biometer lenstar LS 900 and the influence of intraocular pressure

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2014-05
Authors
Borrego Sanz, Lara
Saenz Frances, Federico
Bermudez Vallecilla, M. C.
Morales Fernández, Laura
Martinez de la Casa, Jose Maria
Santos Bueso, Enrique
Jañez Escalada, Luis
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Karger
Citations
Google Scholar
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Abstract
Purpose: To compare central corneal thickness (CCT) values obtained by Lenstar (LE), Pentacam (PC), specular microscopy (SM) and ultrasound pachymetry (UP) in healthy corneas and study their influence on intraocular pressure (IOP) readings determined by Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT). Methods: CCT was measured in 76 healthy subjects by LE, PC, SM and UP. We established Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (ρ-C) between different techniques. The influence of CCT on GAT was established through univariate linear regression models, IOP being the dependent variable. Results: The highest ρ-C was found between LE and SM at 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91-0.96) and between LE and UP at 0.95 (95% CI: 0.94-0.97). IOP readings showed less variability when CCT was determined using LE (7.7%, B = 0.16; 95% CI: 0.004-0.28). Conclusions: Although CCT values obtained with UP, PC, SM and LE show good correlation, these methods are not completely interchangeable. The amount of IOP variation differs when CCT is determined using LE or SM.
Description
Received: March 26, 2013 / Accepted after revision: September 20, 2013 / Published online: March 13, 2014
Keywords
Citation
1 Özlenen-Ucakhan Ö, Özkan M, Kanpolat A: Corneal thickness measurements in normal and keratoconic eyes: Pentacam comprehensive eye scanner versus noncontact specular microscopy and ultrasound pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006;32:970–977. 2 Brugin E, Ghirlando A, Gambato C, Midena E: Central corneal thickness: Z-ring corneal confocal microscopy versus ultrasound pachymetry. Cornea 2007;3:303–307. 3 O’Donnell C, Hartwig A, Radhakrishnan H: Comparison of central corneal thickness and anterior chamber depth measured using Lenstar LS900, Pentacam and Visante AS-OCT. Cornea 2012, Epub ahead of print. 4 Sáenz-Francés F, García Catalán R, Jerez M, Fernández Vidal A, Martínez de la Casa JM, Méndez Hernández C, Sabtos Bueso E, Reche J, García Feijóo J: Comparison of Goldmann applanation and dynamic contour tonometry measurements: effects of corneal morphometry. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol 2011;86:287–291. 5 Whitacre MM, Stein RA, Hassanein K: The effect of corneal thickness on applanation tonometry. Am J Ophthalmol 1993;115:592–596. 6 López-Miguel A, Correa-Pérez ME, MirandaAnta S: Comparison of central corneal thickness using optical low-coherence reflectometry and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg 2012;38: 758–764. 7 Dueker DK, Singh K, Lin SC: Corneal thickness measurement in the management of primary open-glaucoma: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 2007;114:1779–1787. 8 Miglior S, Albe W, Guareschi M, Mandelli G, Gomarasca S: Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility in the evaluation of ultrasonic pachymetry measurements of central corneal thickness. Br J Ophthalmol 2004;88: 174–177. 9 Kiddee W, Horattanareung O: Intraoperator repeatability and interoperator reproducibility in the ultrasonic pachymetry measurements of central corneal thickness. J Med Assoc Thai 2009;92:672–676. 10 De Sanctis U, Missolungi A, Mutani B, Richiardi L, Grignolo FM: Reproducibility and repeatability of central corneal thickness measurement in keratoconus using the rotating Scheimpflug camera and ultrasound pachymetry. Am J Ophthalmol 2007;144:712–718. 11 Tam ES, Rootman DS: Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by specular microscopy, ultrasound pachymetry, and ultrasound biomicroscopy. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003;29:1179–1184. 12 Almubrad TM, Osuagwu UL, Abbadi IA, Ogbuehi KC: Comparison of the precision of the Topcon SP-3000P specular microscope and an ultrasound pachymeter. Clin Ophthalmol 2011;5:871–876. 13 Asensio I, Rahhal SM, Alonso L, Palanca-Sanfrancisco JM, Sanchís-Gimeno JÁ: Corneal thickness values before and after oxybuprocaine 0.4% eye drops. Cornea 2003;22:527–532. 14 Holmen JB, Ekesten B, Lundgren B: Anterior chamber depth estimation by Scheimpflug photography. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2001; 79:576–579. 15 Buehl W, Stojanac D, Sacu S, Drexler W, Findl O: Comparison of three methods of measuring corneal thickness and anterior chamber depth. Am J Ophthalmol 2006;141:7–12. 16 Nissen J, Hjortdal JØ, Ehlers N: A clinical comparison of optical and ultrasonic pachymetry. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1991;69: 659–663. 17 Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, Johnson CA, et al: The ocular hypertension treatment study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary openangle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120: 714–720. 18 Martinez-de-la-Casa JM, Garcia-Feijoo J, Vico E, Fernandez-Vidal A, Benitez del Castillo JM, Wasfi M, et al: Effect of corneal thickness on dynamic contour, rebound, and Goldmann tonometry. Ophthalmology 2006; 113:2156–2162. 19 Sáenz-Francés F, García Feijóo J, Jáñez L, Borrego Sanz L, Martínez de la Casa JM, Méndez CD, Santos Bueso E, García Sánchez J: Comparing corneal variables in healthy subjects and patients with primary open-angle glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011;52: 3683–3688. 20 Sáenz-Francés F, González-Pastor E, Borrego Sanz L: Comparing central corneal thickness measured using ultrasound pachymetry and the Pentacam in healthy subjects and patients with primary open-angle glaucoma. J Fr Ophtalmol 2012;35:333–337. 21 Tai LY, Khaw KT, Ng CM, Subrayan V: Central corneal thickness measurements with different imaging devices and ultrasound pachymetry. Cornea 2013;32:766–771. 22 Beutelspacher SC, Serbecic N, Scheuerle AF: Assessment of central corneal thickness using OCT, ultrasound, optical low coherence reflectometry and Scheimpflug pachymetry. Eur J Ophthalmol 2011;21:132–137. 23 Zhao J, Chen Z, Zhou Z, Ding L, Zhou X: Evaluation of the repeatability of the Lenstar and comparison with two other non-contact biometric devices in miopes. Clin Exp Optom 2013, Epub ahead of print. 24 Jasvinder S, Khang TF, Sarinder KK, Loo VP, Subrayan V: Agreement analysis of Lenstar with other techniques of biometry. Eye 2011; 25:717– 724. 25 Huang J, Pesudovs K, Wen D, Chen S, Wright T, Wang X, Li Y, et al: Comparison of anterior segment measurements with rotating Scheimpflug photography and partial coherence reflectometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 2011;37:341–348. 26 Barkana Y, Gerber Y, Elbaz U: Central corneal thickness measurement with the Pentacam Scheimpflug system, optical low-coherence reflectometry pachymeter and ultrasound pachymeter. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005;31:1729–1735. 27 González-Pérez J, González-Meijome JM, Rodríguez Ares MT: Central corneal thickness measured with three optical devices and ultrasound pachymetry. Eye Contact Lens 2011;37:66–70. 28 Chaudhry IA: Measurement of central corneal thickness in health and disease. Saudi J Ophthalmol 2009;23:179–180. 29 Coste R, Cornand E, Denis D: Pachymétrie cornéenne centrale dans la population pédiatrique par microscopie spéculaire non-contact. J Fr Ophtalmol 2008;31:273–278. 30 Schulle KL, Berntsen DA: Repeatability of onand off-axis eye length measurements using the Lenstar. Optom Vis Sci 2013;90:16–22.
Collections