Central and Peripheral Corneal Thickness Measurement in Normal and Keratoconic Eyes Using Three Corneal Pachymeters

Overview

Journal J Ophthalmic Vis Res

Specialty Ophthalmology

Date 2015 Feb 11

PMID 25667728

Citations 14

Authors

Sepehr Feizi

Mohammad Reza Jafarinasab

Farid Karimian

Hosein Hasanpour

Ali Masudi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the agreement among ultrasonic pachymetry, the Galilei dual Scheimpflug analyzer, and Orbscan II for central and peripheral (Galilei vs. Orbscan) corneal thickness (CCT and PCT) measurement in normal and keratoconic eyes.

Methods: In this prospective study, CCT and PCT were measured in 88 eyes of 88 refractive surgery candidates and 128 eyes of 69 keratoconic patients with ultrasonic pachymetry, the Galilei, and Orbscan II. The readings by the three instruments were compared using one-way analysis of normal variance. Agreement among the three devices was assessed using Pearson and intraclass correlation coefficients, and Bland-Altman plots. The same analyses were employed to evaluate agreement between Galilei and Orbscan II for PCT measurement.

Results: In the normal group, mean CCT was 551.0±39.4, 566.9±33.5, and 565.5±40.9 μm measured by ultrasonic pachymetry, the Galilei, and Orbscan II, respectively (P<0.001). The corresponding figures in the keratoconus group were 492.0±61.7, 502.0±42.1, and 470.6±56.9 μm, respectively (P<0.001). Mean PCT was 612.5±35.3 and 640.9±38.0 μm in the normal group (P<0.001) and 567.6±35.2 and 595.1±41.4 μm in the keratoconus group (P<0.001) by the Galilei and Orbscan II, respectively. CCT and PCT measurements obtained by different devices were significantly correlated in both groups.

Conclusion: To measure CCT, the Galilei and Orbscan II can be used interchangeably in normal eyes, but not in keratoconic eyes. For PCT, there is a systematic error between measurements obtained by the Galilei and Orbscan II. However, it is possible to change optical pachymeter readings into those obtained by ultrasonic pachymetry using a constant.

Citing Articles

Advancements in Hydrogels for Corneal Healing and Tissue Engineering.

Wu K, Qian S, Faucher A, Tran S Gels. 2024; 10(10).

PMID: 39451315 PMC: 11507397. DOI: 10.3390/gels10100662.

Typical localised element-specific finite element anterior eye model.

Towler J, Consejo A, Zhou D, Romano V, Levis H, Boote C Heliyon. 2023; 9(4):e13944.

PMID: 37101628 PMC: 10123217. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13944.

Repeatability of corneal pachymetry and epithelial thickness measurements with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) and correlation to ocular surface parameters.

Chatzistergiou V, Tzamalis A, Diafas A, Oustoglou E, Mataftsi A, Tsinopoulos I Int Ophthalmol. 2023; 43(9):3139-3148.

PMID: 37097425 DOI: 10.1007/s10792-023-02713-2.

Prevalence and characteristics of dry eye disease in Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Nagino K, Sung J, Oyama G, Hayano M, Hattori N, Okumura Y Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):18348.

PMID: 36319814 PMC: 9626467. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-22037-y.

The Underlying Relationship between Keratoconus and Down Syndrome.

Akoto T, Li J, Estes A, Karamichos D, Liu Y Int J Mol Sci. 2022; 23(18).

PMID: 36142709 PMC: 9503764. DOI: 10.3390/ijms231810796.

References

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(1):7-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2005.08.048. View

Gherghel D, Hosking S, Mantry S, Banerjee S, Naroo S, Shah S . Corneal pachymetry in normal and keratoconic eyes: Orbscan II versus ultrasound. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004; 30(6):1272-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2003.11.049. View

Savini G, Carbonelli M, Barboni P, Hoffer K . Repeatability of automatic measurements performed by a dual Scheimpflug analyzer in unoperated and post-refractive surgery eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011; 37(2):302-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.07.039. View

Doughty M, Zaman M . Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta-analysis approach. Surv Ophthalmol. 2000; 44(5):367-408. DOI: 10.1016/s0039-6257(00)00110-7. View

Rainer G, Findl O, Petternel V, Kiss B, Drexler W, Skorpik C . Central corneal thickness measurements with partial coherence interferometry, ultrasound, and the Orbscan system. Ophthalmology. 2004; 111(5):875-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2003.09.027. View

Amano S, Honda N, Amano Y, Yamagami S, Miyai T, Samejima T . Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by rotating Scheimpflug camera, ultrasonic pachymetry, and scanning-slit corneal topography. Ophthalmology. 2006; 113(6):937-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.01.063. View

Gonzalez-Meijome J, Cervino A, Yebra-Pimentel E, Parafita M . Central and peripheral corneal thickness measurement with Orbscan II and topographical ultrasound pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003; 29(1):125-32. DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(02)01815-1. View

Ucakhan O, Ozkan 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(6):970-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.02.037. View

Zadnik K, Barr J, Gordon M, Edrington T . Biomicroscopic signs and disease severity in keratoconus. Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Keratoconus (CLEK) Study Group. Cornea. 1996; 15(2):139-46. DOI: 10.1097/00003226-199603000-00006. View

10.

Haque S, Simpson T, Jones L . Corneal and epithelial thickness in keratoconus: a comparison of ultrasonic pachymetry, Orbscan II, and optical coherence tomography. J Refract Surg. 2006; 22(5):486-93. DOI: 10.3928/1081-597X-20060501-11. View

11.

Cairns G, McGhee C . Orbscan computerized topography: attributes, applications, and limitations. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005; 31(1):205-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.09.047. View

12.

Yaylali V, Kaufman S, Thompson H . Corneal thickness measurements with the Orbscan Topography System and ultrasonic pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998; 23(9):1345-50. DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(97)80113-7. View

13.

Prospero Ponce C, Rocha K, Smith S, Krueger R . Central and peripheral corneal thickness measured with optical coherence tomography, Scheimpflug imaging, and ultrasound pachymetry in normal, keratoconus-suspect, and post-laser in situ keratomileusis eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009; 35(6):1055-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.01.022. View

14.

Lotfi Sedigh A, Shenasi A . Central and peripheral corneal thicknesses in cases with and without keratoconus. Pak J Biol Sci. 2011; 14(2):138-41. DOI: 10.3923/pjbs.2011.138.141. View

15.

Tam E, Rootman D . Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by specular microscopy, ultrasound pachymetry, and ultrasound biomicroscopy. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003; 29(6):1179-84. DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(02)01921-1. View

16.

Marsich M, Bullimore M . The repeatability of corneal thickness measures. Cornea. 2000; 19(6):792-5. DOI: 10.1097/00003226-200011000-00007. View

17.

Rainer G, Petternel V, Findl O, Schmetterer L, Skorpik C, Luksch A . Comparison of ultrasound pachymetry and partial coherence interferometry in the measurement of central corneal thickness. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002; 28(12):2142-5. DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(02)01533-x. View

18.

Rabinowitz Y, Rasheed K, Yang H, Elashoff J . Accuracy of ultrasonic pachymetry and videokeratography in detecting keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998; 24(2):196-201. DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(98)80200-9. View

19.

Menassa N, Kaufmann C, Goggin M, Job O, Bachmann L, Thiel M . Comparison and reproducibility of corneal thickness and curvature readings obtained by the Galilei and the Orbscan II analysis systems. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008; 34(10):1742-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.06.024. View

20.

Miglior S, Albe E, M Guareschi , Mandelli G, Gomarasca S, Orzalesi N . Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility in the evaluation of ultrasonic pachymetry measurements of central corneal thickness. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004; 88(2):174-7. PMC: 1772014. DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2003.023416. View