These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by rotating Scheimpflug camera, ultrasonic pachymetry, and scanning-slit corneal topography.
    Author: Amano S, Honda N, Amano Y, Yamagami S, Miyai T, Samejima T, Ogata M, Miyata K.
    Journal: Ophthalmology; 2006 Jun; 113(6):937-41. PubMed ID: 16751036.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare central corneal thickness measurements and their reproducibility when taken by a rotating Scheimpflug camera, ultrasonic pachymetry, and scanning-slit corneal topography/pachymetry. DESIGN: Experimental study. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-four eyes of 64 subjects without ocular abnormalities other than cataract. METHODS: Corneal thickness measurements were compared among the 3 methods in 54 eyes of 54 subjects. Two sets of measurements were repeated by a single examiner for each pachymetry in another 10 eyes of 5 subjects, and the intraexaminer repeatability was assessed as the absolute difference of the first and second measurements. Two experienced examiners took one measurement for each pachymetry in another 10 eyes of 5 subjects, and the interexaminer reproducibility was assessed as the absolute difference of the 2 measurements of the first and second examiners. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Central corneal thickness measurements by the 3 methods, absolute difference of the first and second measurements by a single examiner, absolute difference of the 2 measurements by 2 examiners, and relative amount of variation. RESULTS: The average measurements of central corneal thickness by a rotating Scheimpflug camera, scanning-slit topography, and ultrasonic pachymetry were 538+/-31.3 microm, 541+/-40.7 microm, and 545+/-31.3 microm, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in the measurement results among the 3 methods (P = 0.569, repeated-measures analysis of variance). There was a significant linear correlation between the rotating Scheimpflug camera and ultrasonic pachymetry (r = 0.908, P<0.0001), rotating Scheimpflug camera and scanning-slit topography (r = 0.930, P<0.0001), and ultrasonic pachymetry and scanning-slit topography (r = 0.887, P<0.0001). Ultrasonic pachymetry had the smallest intraexaminer variability, and scanning-slit topography had the largest intraexaminer variability among the 3 methods. There were similar variations in interexaminer reproducibility among the 3 methods. CONCLUSIONS: Mean corneal thicknesses were comparable among rotating Scheimpflug camera, ultrasonic pachymetry, and scanning-slit topography with the acoustic equivalent correction factor. The measurements of the 3 instruments had significant linear correlations with one another, and all methods had highly satisfactory measurement repeatability.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]