Corneal Thickness Measurements Using 2 Kinds of Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography, Pentacam, Ultrasound Pachymetry

Yu Jin Cheong; Bo Ram Lee; Kyung Eun Han; Roo Min Jun

doi:10.3341/jkos.2016.57.10.1527

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.57(10) > 1010416

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Cheong, Lee, Han, and Jun: Corneal Thickness Measurements Using 2 Kinds of Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography, Pentacam, Ultrasound Pachymetry

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2016;57(10):1527-1534.

Published online: 25 September 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2016.57.10.1527

Corneal Thickness Measurements Using 2 Kinds of Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography, Pentacam, Ultrasound Pachymetry

Yu Jin Cheong, MD, Bo Ram Lee, MD, Kyung Eun Han, MD, Roo Min Jun, MD, PhD

The Institute of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Department of Ophthalmology, Ewha Womans University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Address reprint requests to Roo Min Jun, MD, PhD Department of Ophthalmology, Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital, #1071 Anyangcheon-ro, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul 07985, Korea Tel: 82-2-2650-5154, Fax: 82-2-2650-4334 E-mail: jrmoph@ewha.ac.kr

Received 9 June 2016 Accepted 17 September 2016

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the measurements of central corneal thickness (CCT) obtained using two kinds of spectral domain optical coherence tomography (OCT), Pentacam^®, and ultrasound pachymetry (USP).

Methods

CCT was measured by Cirrus OCT^®, Spectralis OCT^®, Pentacam^®, and USP in 32 eyes from 32 subjects without ocular disease of the anterior segment.

Results

The average CCT measurements using Cirrus OCT^®, Spectralis OCT^®, Pentacam^®, and USP were 549.2 ± 28.7 µm, 545.2 ± 25.4 µm, 554.0 ± 27.8 µm, and 548.4 ± 27.9 µm respectively. The measurements were significantly highly correlated with each other (Pearson's correlation coefficient r > 0.9, all p-values < 0.001), but were significantly different (p < 0.001). The CCT 95% limits of agreement between Cirrus OCT^® and Spectralis OCT^®, Cirrus OCT^® and Pentacam^®, Cirrus OCT^® and USP, Spectralis OCT^® and Pentacam^®, and Spectralis OCT^® and USP were 27.70 µm, 26.1 µm, 26.97 µm, 22.91 µm, 35.59 µm, and 32.15 µm, respectively.

Conclusions

The CCT values measured using the four devices were highly correlated with each other, but the measurement using Pentacam^® was significantly thicker than that using USP. The measurements of the two kinds of spectral domain OCT were similar to those using USP. Therefore, these differences should be considered in clinical use, and measurements cannot be considered interchangeable.

Keywords: Central corneal thickness, Cirrus OCT^®, Pentacam, Spectralis OCT^®, Ultrasound pachymetry

References

1. Faucher A, Grégoire J, Blondeau P. Accuracy of Goldmann abdominal after refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1997; 23:832–8.

2. Fournier AV, Podtetenev M, Lemire J, et al. Intraocular pressure change measured by Goldmann tonometry after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998; 24:905–10.

3. Chang DH, Stulting RD. Change in intraocular pressure abdominals after LASIK the effect of the refractive correction and the abdominal flap. Ophthalmology. 2005; 112:1009–16.

4. Barkana Y, Gerber Y, Elbaz U, et al. Central corneal thickness measurement with the Pentacam Scheimpflug system, optical low-coherence reflectometry pachymeter, and ultrasound pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005; 31:1729–35.

5. Miranda MA, Radhakrishnan H, O'Donnell C. Repeatability of corneal thickness measured using an Oculus Pentacam. Optom Vis Sci. 2009; 86:266–72.

6. Solomon OD. Corneal indentation during ultrasonic pachometry. Cornea. 1999; 18:214–5.

7. Doughty MJ, Zaman ML. Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta-analysis approach. Surv Ophthalmol. 2000; 44:367–408.

8. Ling T, Ho A, Holden BA. Method of evaluating ultrasonic pachometers. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1986; 63:462–6.

9. Amano S, Honda N, Amano Y, et al. Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by rotating Scheimpflug camera, ultrasonic pachymetry, and scanning-slit corneal topography. Ophthalmology. 2006; 113:937–41.

10. Leung DY, Lam DK, Yeung BY, Lam DS. Comparison between central corneal thickness measurements by ultrasound pachymetry and optical coherence tomography. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2006; 34:751–4.

11. Li H, Leung CK, Wong L, et al. Comparative study of central abdominal thickness measurement with abdominal optical coherence abdominal and visante optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology. 2008; 115:796–801.e2.

12. Rosa N, Lanza M, Borrelli M, et al. Comparison of central corneal thickness measured with Orbscan and Pentacam. J Refract Surg. 2007; 23:895–9.

13. Al-Mezaine HS, Al-Amro SA, Kangave D, et al. Comparison abdominal central corneal thickness measurements by oculus pentacam and ultrasonic pachymetry. Int Ophthalmol. 2008; 28:333–8.

14. Bechmann M, Thiel MJ, Neubauer AS, et al. Central corneal abdominal measurement with a retinal optical coherence tomography device versus standard ultrasonic pachymetry. Cornea. 2001; 20:50–4.

15. Fishman GR, Pons ME, Seedor JA, et al. Assessment of central corneal thickness using optical coherence tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005; 31:707–11.

16. Thomas J, Wang J, Rollins AM, Sturm J. Comparison of corneal thickness measured with optical coherence tomography, ultrasonic pachymetry, and a scanning slit method. J Refract Surg. 2006; 22:671–8.

17. Kim DW, Yi KY, Choi DG, Shin YJ. Corneal thickness measured by dual Scheimpflug, anterior segment optical coherence abdominal, and ultrasound pachymetry. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2012; 53:1412–18.

18. Yang YS, Koh JW. Utility of the noncontact specular microscopy for measurements of central corneal thickness. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2014; 55:59–65.

19. Fu J, Wang X, Li S, et al. Comparative study of anterior segment measurement with Pentacam and anterior segment optical abdominal tomography. Can J Ophthalmol. 2010; 45:627–31.

20. Azen SP, Burg KA, Smith RE, Maguen E. A comparison of three methods for the measurement of corneal thickness. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1979; 18:535–8.

Figure 1.

Mean and 95% confidence interval of central corneal thickness by Cirrus OCT®, Spectralis OCT®, Pentacam®, USP. OCT = optical coherence tomography; USP = ultrasound pachymetry.

Figure 2.

Scatter plots of central corneal thickness (μ m) between 4 methods. (A) Spectralis OCT® and Cirrus OCT®, (B) Spectralis OCT® and Pentacam®, (C) Spectralis OCT® and USP, (D) Cirrus OCT® and Pentacam®, (E) Cirrus OCT® and USP, (F) Pentacam® and USP. CCT = central corneal thickness; OCT = optical coherence tomography; USP = ultrasound pachymetry.

Figure 3.

Bland-Altman plot of central corneal thickness (μ m) between 4 methods. (A) Spectralis OCT® and Cirrus OCT®, (B) Spectralis OCT® and Pentacam®, (C) Spectralis OCT® and USP, (D) Cirrus OCT® and Pentacam®, (E) Cirrus OCT® and USP, (F) Pentacam® and USP. OCT = optical coherence tomography; USP = ultrasound pachymetry; SD = standard deviation.

Table 1.

Mean CCT measured by Cirrus OCT®, Spectralis OCT®, Pentacam® and USP®

Methods	Mean ± SD (μ m)	Range (μ m)	p-value^*
Cirrus OCT®	549.2 ± 28.7	500.0–598.0	<0.001
Spectralis OCT®	545.2 ± 25.4	502.0–585.0
Pentacam®	554.0 ± 27.8	508.0–600.0
USP	548.4 ± 27.9	504.0–593.0

Values are presented as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated.

CCT = central corneal thickness; OCT = optical coherence tomography; USP = ultrasound pachymetry; SD = standard deviation.

^* Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Table 2.

Pairwise comparison of central corneal thickness mesurements

	MD ± SD (μ m)	Max. of MD (μ m)	Min. of MD (μ m)	p-value^*
Spectralis OCT®– Cirrus OCT®	–4.00 ± 7.07	16.0	–15.0	0.031^†
Spectralis OCT®– Pentacam®	–8.81 ± 5.84	2.0	–21.0	<0.001^†
Spectralis OCT®– USP	–3.22 ± 9.05	16.0	–25.0	0.537
Cirrus OCT®– Pentacam®	–4.81 ± 6.66	6.0	–24.0	<0.001^†
Cirrus OCT®– USP	0.78 ± 6.88	13.0	–18.0	0.525
Pentacam®– USP	5.59 ± 8.20	24.0	–16.0	0.001^†

Values are presented as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated.

MD = Mean difference; SD = standard deviation; Max. = Maximum; Min. = Minimum; OCT = optical coherence tomography; USP = ultrasound pachymetry.

^* Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni post hoc analysis

^† Mean central corneal thickness was statistically significantly different between two groups.

Table 3.

Intraexaminer repeatability of each methods for CCT measurement

Methods	ICC (95% CI)
Cirrus OCT®	0.994 (0.988–0.997)
Spectralis OCT®	0.991 (0.982–0.996)
Pentacam®	0.986 (0.972–0.993)
USP	0.990 (0.981–0.995)

CCT = central corneal thickness; ICC = intraclass correlation co-eficient; CI = confidence interval; OCT = optical coherence tomography; USP = ultrasound pachymetry.

TOOLS

Similar articles