Central corneal thickness evaluation in healthy eyes with three different optical devices

2015 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. 409-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele Lanza ◽  
Erica Paolillo ◽  
Ugo Antonello Gironi Carnevale ◽  
Alessandro Lanza ◽  
Carlo Irregolare ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Optical Devices ◽  
Thickness Evaluation ◽  
Healthy Eyes

scholarly journals Reproducibility and repeatability of central corneal thickness measurement in healthy eyes using four different optical devices

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 1039-1045 ◽  
Author(s):  
Remzi Karadag ◽  
Murat Unluzeybek ◽  
Ozgur Cakici ◽  
Ayse Yagmur Kanra ◽  
Huseyin Bayramlar
Keyword(s):  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Optical Devices ◽  
Thickness Measurement ◽  
Healthy Eyes

scholarly journals Repeatability and Agreement of Central Corneal Thickness and Keratometry Measurements between Four Different Devices

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laszlo Kiraly ◽  
Jana Stange ◽  
Kathleen S. Kunert ◽  
Saadettin Sel
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Correlation Coefficient ◽  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Bland Altman Method ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Healthy Eyes ◽  
Iolmaster 700

Background.To estimate repeatability and comparability of central corneal thickness (CCT) and keratometry measurements obtained by four different devices in healthy eyes.Methods.Fifty-five healthy eyes from 55 volunteers were enrolled in this study. CCT (IOLMaster 700, Pentacam HR, and Cirrus HD-OCT) and keratometry readings (IOLMaster 700, Pentacam HR, and iDesign) were measured. For statistical analysis, the corneal spherocylinder was converted into power vectors (J0, J45). Repeatability was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Agreement of measurements between the devices was evaluated by the Bland-Altman method.Results.The analysis of repeatability of CCT data of IOLMaster 700, Pentacam HR, and Cirrus HD-OCT showed high ICCs (range 0.995 to 0.999). The comparison of CCT measurements revealed statistically significant differences between Pentacam HR versus IOLMaster 700 (p<0.0001) and Pentacam HR versus Cirrus HD-OCT (p<0.0001), respectively. There was no difference in CCT measurements between IOLMaster 700 and Cirrus HD-OCT (p=0.519). The repeatability of keratometry readings (J0 and J45) of IOLMaster 700, Pentacam HR, and iDesign was also high with ICCs ranging from 0.974 to 0.999. The Pentacam HR revealed significantly higher J0 in comparison to IOLMaster 700 (p=0.009) and iDesign (p=0.041); however, no significant difference was between IOLMaster 700 and iDesign (p=0.426). Comparison of J45 showed no significant difference between IOLMaster 700, Pentacam HR, and iDesign. These results were in accordance with Bland-Altman plots.Conclusion.In clinical practice, the devices analyzed should not be used interchangeably due to low agreement regarding CCT as well as keratometry readings.

scholarly journals Corneal thickness evaluation in healthy eyes: Comparison between two different Scheimpflug devices

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. e0243370
Author(s):  
Nicola Rosa ◽  
Maddalena De Bernardo ◽  
Angela Pepe ◽  
Livio Vitiello ◽  
Giuseppe Marotta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Observational Study ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Pupil Center ◽  
Regression Formula ◽  
Ct Measurements ◽  
Corneal Apex ◽  
Thickness Evaluation ◽  
Healthy Eyes

Purpose To evaluate the correlation between corneal thickness (CT) measurements obtained with two Scheimpflug devices, Pentacam HR and Precisio, and to elaborate, if necessary, a regression formula which could make these results comparable. Design Retrospective, Comparative, Observational study. Setting Department of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, “Scuola Medica Salernitana” University of Salerno, Italy Methods One hundred twenty four healthy eyes of 124 volunteers (65 males; range: 20–32 years; mean age of 24.8 ± 1.7) were included in this study. CT was measured using Pentacam HR and Precisio in three different points: the pupil center (PC), the corneal apex (CA) and the thinnest point (TP). Results CT obtained with both devices at the PC, at the CA and at the TP showed a good correlation (r = 0.97, r = 0.97, r = 0.97, respectively), but Pentacam HR measurements were significantly thicker than those provided by Precisio (p < 0.01). The differences between Pentacam HR and Precisio were 21.9 ± 8.8 μm at the PC, 21.9 ± 8.9 μm at the CA, 19.1 ± 9.0 μm at the TP. The calculated regression formulas were: y = 0.9558x + 2.3196 for the PC, y = 0.9519x + 4.5626 for the CA, y = 0.9364x + 15.436 for the TP, where x is the CT measured with Pentacam HR and y is the Precisio measurement. Conclusions The findings provided by this study highlight that Precisio measures thinner corneas compared to Pentacam HR. The identified regression formulas could be utilized to make interchangeable the results obtained with these two devices.

Relationship Between Central Epithelial Thickness and Central Corneal Thickness in Healthy Eyes and Eyes After Laser In Situ Keratomileusis

Cornea ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 37 (8) ◽  
pp. 1053-1057 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dmitrii S. Maltsev ◽  
Elena V. Kudryashova ◽  
Alexei N. Kulikov ◽  
Artem Yu. Mareichev
Keyword(s):  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Laser In Situ Keratomileusis ◽  
Epithelial Thickness ◽  
Healthy Eyes

scholarly journals Precision and Agreement of Central Corneal Thickness Measured with E-pach, A-scan, Corvis ST and Pentacam

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anqi Liu ◽  
Zequan Xu ◽  
Jingjing Wang ◽  
Feng Liu ◽  
Yanming Jiang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Correlation Coefficient ◽  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Limits Of Agreement ◽  
Interobserver Reproducibility ◽  
Corvis St ◽  
Test Study ◽  
Repeatability And Reproducibility ◽  
Healthy Eyes

Abstract Purpose To assess the precision (repeatability and reproducibility) and agreement of central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements by E-pach, Pentacam, Corvis ST and A-scan devices in healthy eyes. Methods Instrument diagnostic test study. A total of 100 patients were enrolled to measure right-eye CCT by E-pach, Pentacam, Corvis ST, and A-scan devices. To assess repeatability and reproducibility, the test-retest repeatability (TRT) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were calculated. The agreement among the four devices was evaluated with Bland-Altman plots. Results The E-pach showed repeatability (ICC=0.9981), interobserver reproducibility (ICC=0.9971) and intersession reproducibility (ICC=0.9825); the Pentacam, Corvis ST and A-scan also showed similar repeatability (all ICC≥0.9679), interobserver reproducibility (all ICC≥0.9730) and intersession reproducibility (all ICC≥0.9647). However, the E-pach yielded CCT values that were obviously lower than those of the A-scan and Pentacam (P<0.001) but higher than those of the Corvis ST (P<0.001). The 95% limits of agreement (LoA) in the Bland-Altman plots were 44.5 µm (E-pach vs. A-scan), 34.9 µm (E-pach vs. Corvis CT) and 32.5 µm (E-pach vs. Pentacam). Conclusions The E-pach is a portable, reliable and inexpensive pachymeter. However, the CCT values obtained from the E-pach are not interchangeable with those from Pentacam, Corvis ST and A-scan devices.

Comparison of central corneal thickness with four different optical devices

2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. 2363-2369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kuddusi Teberik ◽  
Mehmet Tahir Eski ◽  
Murat Kaya ◽  
Handan Ankaralı
Keyword(s):  
Central Corneal Thickness ◽  
Corneal Thickness ◽  
Optical Devices
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document