PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - J Bradley Randleman
AU  - Michael J Lynn
AU  - Claudia E Perez-Straziota
AU  - Heather M Weissman
AU  - Sang Woo Kim
TI  - Comparison of central and peripheral corneal thickness measurements with scanning-slit, Scheimpflug and Fourier-domain ocular coherence tomography
AID  - 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-306340
DP  - 2015 Sep 01
TA  - British Journal of Ophthalmology
PG  - 1176--1181
VI  - 99
IP  - 9
4099  - http://bjo.bmj.com/content/99/9/1176.short
4100  - http://bjo.bmj.com/content/99/9/1176.full
SO  - Br J Ophthalmol2015 Sep 01; 99
AB  - 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.