Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.57(10) > 1010423

TOOLS
Jeung, Gil, Bae, Shin, and Chung: Comparison of Anterior Chamber Depth and Central Corneal Thickness Measured Using Different Devices
Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2016;57(10):1570-1576.

Published online: 25 September 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2016.57.10.1570

Comparison of Anterior Chamber Depth and Central Corneal Thickness Measured Using Different Devices

Jae Gyun Jeung, MD1, Tae Young Gil, MD1, Gi Hyun Bae, MD1, Seong Joo Shin, MD1, Sung Kun Chung, MD PhD2

1Department of Ophthalmology, Sahmyook Medical Center, Seoul, Korea

2Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, St. Paul's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea

Address reprint requests to Sung Kun Chung, MD, PhD Department of Ophthalmology, The Catholic University of Korea St. Paul's Hospital, #180 Wangsan-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 02559, Korea Tel: 82-2-958-2151, Fax: 82-2-960-2150 E-mail: eyedoc@catholic.ac.kr

Received 28 April 2016       Accepted 20 September 2016

Copyright © 2016 Korean Ophthalmological Society

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 accuracy and clinical usefulness of different devices by measuring anterior chamber depth (ACD) with three devices and central corneal thickness (CCT) with four devices.

Methods

In 180 eyes of 90 healthy subjects, ACD was measured using A-scan, Lenstar LS900®, Pentacam®, and CCT was measured using ultrasound pachymetry (USP), Lenstar LS900®, Pentacam®, and anterior segment optical coherence tomography (OCT).

Results

The average ACT measurements using Lenstar LS900®, A-scan, and Pentacam® were 3.27 ± 0.35 mm, 3.26 ± 0.36 mm, and 3.25 ± 0.36 mm, respectively. The measurements were significantly correlated (p < 0.001) but without statistically significant difference (p = 0.017). The Bland-Altman plots showed a low degree of agreement. The average CCT measurements using Pentacam®, USP, Lenstar LS900®, and OCT were 553.31 ± 25.23 μ m, 547.26 ± 23.83 μ m, 541.38 ± 24.49 μ m, and 531.40 ± 22.33 μ m, respectively. The measurements were significantly correlated (p < 0.001) and statistically significantly different (p < 0.05). The Bland-Altman plots showed a low degree of agreement.

Conclusions

ACD and CCT measured using different devices were highly correlated, but the ACD measurements were not statistically different; however, the CCT measurements were statistically different, and agreement was low between both measurements.

Keywords: Anterior chamber depth, A-scan, Central corneal thickness, Lenstar®, Pentacam®

References

1. Reddy AR, Pande MV, Finn P, El-Gogary H. Comparative estimation of anterior chamber depth by ultrasonography, Orbscan II, and IOLMaster. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004; 30:1268–71.
crossref
2. Vetrugno M, Cardascia N, Cardia L. Anterior chamber depth abdominal by two methods in myopic and hyperopic phakic IOL implant. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000; 84:1113–6.
3. Huang J, Pesudovs K, Wen D, et al. Comparison of anterior abdominal measurements with rotating Scheimpflug photography and partial coherence reflectometry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011; 37:341–8.
4. Oʼ Donnell C, Hartwig A, Radhakrishnan H. Comparison of central corneal thickness and anterior chamber depth measured using LenStar LS900, Pentacam, and Visante AS-OCT. Cornea. 2012; 31:983–8.
5. Uçakhan OÖ, Akbel V, Bı yı klı Z, Kanpolat A. Comparison of abdominal curvature and anterior chamber depth measurements using the manual keratometer, Lenstar LS 900 and the Pentacam. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2013; 20:201–6.
6. Elbaz U, Barkana Y, Gerber Y, et al. Comparison of different abdominals of anterior chamber depth and keratometric measurements. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007; 143:48–53.
7. Tappeiner C, Rohrer K, Frueh BE, et al. Clinical comparison of biometry using the non-contact optical low coherence reflectometer (Lenstar LS 900) and contact ultrasound biometer (Tomey AL-3000) in cataract eyes. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010; 94:666–7.
crossref
8. Gursoy H, Sahin A, Basmak H, et al. Lenstar versus ultrasound for ocular biometry in a pediatric population. Optom Vis Sci. 2011; 88:912–9.
crossref
9. Borrego-Sanz L, Sáenz-Francés F, Bermudez-Vallecilla M, et al. Agreement between central corneal thickness measured using Pentacam, ultrasound pachymetry, specular microscopy and optic biometer Lenstar LS 900 and the influence of intraocular pressure. Ophthalmologica. 2014; 231:226–35.
crossref
10. Tai LY, Khaw KW, Ng CM, Subrayan V. Central corneal thickness measurements with different imaging devices and ultrasound pachymetry. Cornea. 2013; 32:766–71.
crossref
11. Bechmann M, Thiel MJ, Neubauer AS, et al. Central corneal thickness measurement with a retinal optical coherence tomography device versus standard ultrasonic pachymetry. Cornea. 2001; 20:50–4.
crossref
12. Kim HY, Budenz DL, Lee PS, et al. Comparison of central corneal thickness using anterior segment optical coherence tomography vs ultrasound pachymetry. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008; 145:228–32.
crossref
13. Leung DY, Lam DK, Yeung BY, Lam DS. Comparison between central corneal thickness measurements by ultrasound pachymetry and optical coherence tomography. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2006; 34:751–4.
crossref
14. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing abdominal between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 1:307–10.
15. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measurement error. BMJ. 1996; 313:744.
16. Savini G, Carbonelli M, Barboni P, Hoffer KJ. Repeatability of automatic measurements performed by a dual Scheimpflug analyzer in unoperated and post-refractive surgery eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011; 37:302–9.
crossref
17. Jasvinder S, Khang TF, Sarinder KK, et al. Agreement analysis of LENSTAR with other techniques of biometry. Eye (Lond). 2011; 25:717–24.
crossref
18. Rodrigues EB, Johanson M, Penha FM. Anterior segment abdominal with the cirrus optical coherence tomography. J Ophthalmol. 2012; 2012:806989.
19. Amano S, Honda N, Amano Y, et al. Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by rotating Scheimpflug camera, abdominal pachymetry, and scanning-slit corneal topography. Ophthalmology. 2006; 113:937–41.
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.
Bland and Altman plots comparing the level of agreement between the 3 instruments for anterior chamber depth (ACD, mm). (A) A-scan and Lentar LS900®, (B) Ascan and Pentacam®, (C) Lenstar® and Pentacam®. SD = standard deviation.
jkos-57-1570f1.tif
Figure 2.
Bland and Altman plots comparing the level of agreement between the 4 instruments for central corneal thickness (CCT, μ m). (A) Ultrasound pachymetry (USP) and Lenstar LS900, (B) USP and Pentacam, (C) USP and anterior optical coherence tomography (OCT), (D) Lenstar and Pentacam, (E) Lenstar and anterior OCT, (F) Pentacam and anterior OCT. SD = standard deviation.
jkos-57-1570f2.tif
Table 1.
Comparison of mean anterior chamber depth among devices
  A-scan Lenstar LS900® Pentacam® p-value*
Mean ACD (mm) 3.26 ± 0.36 3.27 ± 0.35 3.25 ± 0.36 0.170
Range (mm) 2.25–4.12 2.46–4.27 2.22–4.34  

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

ACD = anterior chamber depth; SD = standard deviation.

* p-value is obtained from repeated measured analysis of variance (ANOVA) test.

Table 2.
Mean difference, 95% limit of agreement (LoA), and Pearson correlation of anterior chamber depth
  Mean difference ± SD p-value* 95% LoA Pearson correlation n p-value†
A-scan– Lenstar® (mm) –0.01 ± 0.22 1.000 –0.43 to 0.41 0.816 <0.001
A-scan– Pentacam® (mm) 0.01 ± 0.26 0.204 –0.49 to 0.51 0.753 <0.001
Lenstar®– Pentacam® (mm) 0.02 ± 0.16 1.000 –0.30 to 0.34 0.897 <0.001

Values are presented as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated.

SD = standard deviation.

* p-value is obtained from Bonferroni post hoc analysis

† p-value is obtained from Pearson correlation.

Table 3.
Comparison of mean central corneal thickness among devices
  USP Lenstar® Pentacam® AS-OCT p-value*
Mean CCT (μ m) 547.26 ± 23.83 541.38 ± 24.49 553.31 ± 25.23 531.40 ± 22.33 <0.05
Range (μ m) 486–606 485–599 487–611 478–584  

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

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

* p-value is obtained from Friedman test.

Table 4.
Mean difference, 95% limit of agreement (LoA), and Pearson correlation of central corneal thickness
Comparisons Mean difference ± SD p-value* 95% LoA Pearson correlation p-value†
USP– Lenstar® (μ m) 5.9 ± 27.4 0.000 –21.5 to 33.3 0.833 <0.001
USP– Pentacam® (μ m) –6.0 ± 31.1 0.000 –37.2 to 25.1 0.792 <0.001
USP– AS-OCT (μ m) 15.9 ± 25.7 0.000 –9.9 to 41.6 0.840 <0.001
Lenstar®– Pentacam® (μ m) –11.9 ± 26.3 0.000 –38.2 to 14.4 0.855 <0.001
Lenstar®– AS-OCT (μ m) 10.0 ± 16.5 0.000 –6.6 to 26.5 0.939 <0.001
Pentacam®– AS-OCT (μ m) 21.9 ± 25.6 0.000 –3.7 to 47.5 0.856 <0.001

Values are presented as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated.

USP = ultrasound pachymetry; AS-OCT = anterior segment optical coherence tomography; SD = standard deviation.

* p-value is obtained from Wilcoxon-rank signed test

† p-value is obtained from Pearson correlation.

TOOLS
Similar articles