To Compare Central Corneal Thickness Measurements Obtained by Pentacam with Those Obtained by IOLMaster 700, Cirrus Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography and Tomey Specular Microscopy in Normal Healthy Eyes

Overview

Journal Indian J Ophthalmol

Specialty Ophthalmology

Date 2021 Jun 19

PMID 34146013

Citations 4

Authors

K Kiran Kumar

Akshata A Prakash

T G Neeraja

Karishma T Adappa

T S Chandra Prabha

Suresh Babu Gangasagara

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare central corneal thickness measurements obtained by Pentacam with those obtained by IOL Master 700, Cirrus Anterior segment optical coherence tomography and Tomey Specular microscopy in normal healthy eyes.

Methods: Two hundred and six eyes of healthy subjects were included in the study. Each subject was assessed by four different methods of measuring central corneal thickness using Pentacam, IOL Master 700, Cirrus AS-OCT and Tomey Specular microscopy by a single examiner.

Results: The mean CCT [± standard deviation (SD)] for Pentacam, IOL Master 700, Cirrus AS-OCT and Tomey Specular microscopy were Pentacam (Oculus), AS-OCT (Cirrus), IOL Master 700 and Specular microscopy (Tomey) were 523.75 (±27.75), 525.29 (±28.81),517.13 (±28.43) and 512.82 (±27.60) μm, respectively. All the means were significantly different from one another (P < 0.000). The differences between pairs of mean central corneal thickness (CCT) for Pentacam and IOL Master, Pentacam and anterior segment- optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT), and Pentacam and Specular microscopy are statistically significant. Bland-Altman plots showed that pentacam and IOL Master 700 have the closest agreement, followed by AS-OCT. Specular microscopy was found to have the poorest agreement with Pentacam.

Conclusion: We found that CCT measurements of Pentacam did not correlate with measurements of IOL Master, or AS-OCT or Specular microscopy. In clinical practice, the devices analyzed should not be used interchangeably due to low agreement regarding CCT values.

Citing Articles

Interocular Symmetry and Intermachine Reproducibility of Optic Disc and Macular Parameters Measured by Two Different Models of Optical Coherence Tomography.

Firdaus S, Pereira L, Yang G, Huang-Link Y Clin Ophthalmol. 2024; 18:2397-2406.

PMID: 39221077 PMC: 11363946. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S465360.

Comparison of ocular biometric parameters between two swept-source optical coherence tomography devices and Scheimpflug tomography in patients with cataract.

Ma S, Li C, Sun J, Yang J, Wen K, Chen X Int J Ophthalmol. 2024; 17(8):1437-1446.

PMID: 39156774 PMC: 11286440. DOI: 10.18240/ijo.2024.08.08.

Comparison of corneal measurements in normal and keratoconus eyes using Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography (AS-OCT) and Pentacam HR topographer.

Said O, Kamal M, Tawfik S, Saif A BMC Ophthalmol. 2023; 23(1):194.

PMID: 37138239 PMC: 10155327. DOI: 10.1186/s12886-023-02946-w.

Monitoring of central corneal thickness after phacoemulsification-comparison of statical and rotating Scheimpflug pachymetry, and spectral-domain OCT.

Handzel D, Meyer C, Wegener A Int J Ophthalmol. 2022; 15(8):1266-1272.

PMID: 36017056 PMC: 9358173. DOI: 10.18240/ijo.2022.08.07.

References

BarKana Y, Gerber Y, Elbaz U, Schwartz S, Ken-Dror G, Avni I . Central corneal thickness measurement with the Pentacam Scheimpflug system, optical low-coherence reflectometry pachymeter, and ultrasound pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005; 31(9):1729-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2005.03.058. View

Yap T, Archer T, Gobbe M, Reinstein D . Comparison of Central Corneal Thickness Between Fourier-Domain OCT, Very High-Frequency Digital Ultrasound, and Scheimpflug Imaging Systems. J Refract Surg. 2016; 32(2):110-6. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20151223-01. View

Chen S, Huang J, Wen D, Chen W, Huang D, Wang Q . Measurement of central corneal thickness by high-resolution Scheimpflug imaging, Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography and ultrasound pachymetry. Acta Ophthalmol. 2010; 90(5):449-55. DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2010.01947.x. View

Wheeler N, Morantes C, Kristensen R, Pettit T, Lee D . Reliability coefficients of three corneal pachymeters. Am J Ophthalmol. 1992; 113(6):645-51. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9394(14)74788-9. View

Fujioka M, Nakamura M, Tatsumi Y, Kusuhara A, Maeda H, Negi A . Comparison of Pentacam Scheimpflug camera with ultrasound pachymetry and noncontact specular microscopy in measuring central corneal thickness. Curr Eye Res. 2007; 32(2):89-94. DOI: 10.1080/02713680601115010. View

Al-Mezaine H, Al-Amro S, Kangave D, Sadaawy A, Wehaib T, Al-Obeidan S . Comparison between central corneal thickness measurements by oculus pentacam and ultrasonic pachymetry. Int Ophthalmol. 2007; 28(5):333-8. DOI: 10.1007/s10792-007-9143-9. View

Wu W, Wang Y, Xu L . Meta-analysis of Pentacam vs. ultrasound pachymetry in central corneal thickness measurement in normal, post-LASIK or PRK, and keratoconic or keratoconus-suspect eyes. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013; 252(1):91-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00417-013-2502-5. View

Maldonado M, Munuera J, Aliseda D, Garcia-Layana A, Moreno-Montanes J . Optical coherence tomography evaluation of the corneal cap and stromal bed features after laser in situ keratomileusis for high myopia and astigmatism. Ophthalmology. 2000; 107(1):81-7; discussion 88. DOI: 10.1016/s0161-6420(99)00022-6. View

Modis Jr L, Szalai E, Nemeth G, Berta A . Reliability of the corneal thickness measurements with the Pentacam HR imaging system and ultrasound pachymetry. Cornea. 2010; 30(5):561-6. DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e318200096a. View

10.

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

11.

Al-Ageel S, Al-Muammar A . Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by Pentacam, noncontact specular microscope, and ultrasound pachymetry in normal and post-LASIK eyes. Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2013; 23(3-4):181-7. PMC: 3729515. DOI: 10.1016/j.sjopt.2009.10.002. View

12.

Ozyol E, Ozyol P . Comparison of central corneal thickness with four noncontact devices: An agreement analysis of swept-source technology. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2017; 65(6):461-465. PMC: 5508455. DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_618_16. View

13.

Modis Jr L, Szalai E, Nemeth G, Berta A . Evaluation of a recently developed noncontact specular microscope in comparison with conventional pachymetry devices. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2010; 20(5):831-8. DOI: 10.1177/112067211002000504. View

14.

Liu B, Brezinski M . Theoretical and practical considerations on detection performance of time domain, Fourier domain, and swept source optical coherence tomography. J Biomed Opt. 2007; 12(4):044007. DOI: 10.1117/1.2753410. View

15.

Nam S, Im C, Lee H, Kim E, Kim T, Seo K . Accuracy of RTVue optical coherence tomography, Pentacam, and ultrasonic pachymetry for the measurement of central corneal thickness. Ophthalmology. 2010; 117(11):2096-103. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.03.002. View

16.

Kiraly L, Stange J, Kunert K, Sel S . Repeatability and Agreement of Central Corneal Thickness and Keratometry Measurements between Four Different Devices. J Ophthalmol. 2017; 2017:6181405. PMC: 5357553. DOI: 10.1155/2017/6181405. View

17.

Swartz T, Marten L, Wang M . Measuring the cornea: the latest developments in corneal topography. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2007; 18(4):325-33. DOI: 10.1097/ICU.0b013e3281ca7121. View

18.

Vijaya L, George R, Arvind H, Ve Ramesh S, Baskaran M, Raju P . Central corneal thickness in adult South Indians: the Chennai Glaucoma Study. Ophthalmology. 2010; 117(4):700-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.09.025. View

19.

Ozyol P, Ozyol E . Agreement Between Swept-Source Optical Biometry and Scheimpflug-based Topography Measurements of Anterior Segment Parameters. Am J Ophthalmol. 2016; 169:73-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2016.06.020. View

20.

Kanellopoulos A, Asimellis G . Comparison of high-resolution Scheimpflug and high-frequency ultrasound biomicroscopy to anterior-segment OCT corneal thickness measurements. Clin Ophthalmol. 2013; 7:2239-47. PMC: 3838761. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S53718. View