Article Text

other Versions

PDF
Comparison of central and peripheral corneal thickness measurements with scanning-slit, Scheimpflug and Fourier-domain ocular coherence tomography
  1. J Bradley Randleman1,2,
  2. Michael J Lynn3,
  3. Claudia E Perez-Straziota1,
  4. Heather M Weissman1,
  5. Sang Woo Kim4
  1. 1Department of Ophthalmology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
  2. 2Emory Vision, Emory Eye Center, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
  3. 3Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
  4. 4Department of Ophthalmology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan, South Korea
  1. Correspondence to Dr J Bradley Randleman, Emory Eye Center, 5671 Peachtree Dunwoody Rd NE, Suite 400, Atlanta, GA 30342, USA; jrandle{at}emory.edu

Abstract

Purpose To compare central, regional and relational corneal thickness values obtained with multiple technologies in normal patients and to determine their equivalence and interchangeability.

Methods Retrospective analysis of 100 eyes from 50 patients evaluated by ultrasound pachymetry (Pachette II), scanning-slit (Orbscan II), Scheimpflug (Pentacam HR) and spectral-domain ocular coherence tomography (OCT) (RTVue-100) obtained as average values (OCT-A) and point measurements (OCT-P). Measurements included central corneal thickness (CCT) for all technologies and thinnest corneal thickness for scanning-slit, Scheimpflug and OCT. Peripheral thickness measurements were obtained at the 3 mm radius in the superior (S), nasal (N), inferior (I) and temporal (T) regions.

Results CCT values were: 563.9±36.1μ ultrasound, 570.9±36.1μ scanning-slit, 552.8±33.8μ Scheimpflug, 550.5±32.7μ (OCT-A), 549.4±32.7μ (OCT-P). Ultrasound and scanning-slit were significantly different from each other (p<0.0001), and both were significantly different from all other devices (p<0.0001), while Scheimpflug was similar to OCT-A and OCT-P (p=0.4). Differences between CCT and thinnest corneal thickness were significantly different from all technologies except scanning-slit and OCT-A. For peripheral values, almost all locations’ measurements were significantly different from one another (p<0.0001). Superior–inferior values and ratios were also significantly different from one another for almost all devices with no consistent patterns detectible.

Conclusions There are significant clinically relevant differences between regional and relational thickness measurements obtained with ultrasound, scanning-slit, Scheimpflug and OCT devices. Screening metrics devised for one system do not appear directly applicable to other measurement systems.

  • Cornea
  • Diagnostic tests/Investigation
  • Imaging
  • Treatment Lasers

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles

  • At a glance
    Keith Barton James Chodosh Jost Jonas