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: Comparative study of central corneal thickness measurement with slit-lamp optical coherence tomography and visante optical coherence tomography.
    Author: Li H, Leung CK, Wong L, Cheung CY, Pang CP, Weinreb RN, Lam DS.
    Journal: Ophthalmology; 2008 May; 115(5):796-801.e2. PubMed ID: 17916376.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements obtained by 2 anterior segment optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging systems and to examine their agreements with ultrasound pachymetry. DESIGN: Observational cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty eyes from 50 healthy normal subjects were recruited. METHODS: In one randomly selected eye in each subject, CCT was measured by slit-lamp OCT (SLOCT), Visante OCT, and ultrasound pachymetry. For anterior segment OCT measurements, both automatic and manual CCTs were obtained. Twenty-five of the 50 subjects were invited for 2 more visits within a week to evaluate repeatability and reproducibility of CCT measurement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Central corneal thickness measurement obtained by the 3 methods and their agreements. Intrasession and intersession within-subject standard deviation (S(w)), precision (1.96xS(w)), coefficient of variation (CV(w)) (100xS(w)/overall mean), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were calculated to evaluate repeatability and reproducibility. RESULTS: Good repeatability and reproducibility were found for both automatic and manual CCT measurements obtained by SLOCT and Visante OCT. For intrasession repeatability, CV(w) and ICC values ranged between 0.9% and 1.2% and 0.96 and 0.98, respectively. For intersession reproducibility, the respective CV(w) and ICC values ranged between 1.2% and 1.4% and 0.94 and 0.96. Although no significant difference was found between automatic/manual SLOCT measurements and ultrasound pachymetry, automatic Visante OCT CCT (535.7+/-30.2 microm) was significantly less than CCT with ultrasound pachymetry (550.3+/-31.14 microm) (P<0.001). In contrast, manual Visante OCT measurement (558.8+/-32.8 microm) was slightly higher than ultrasound pachymetry (P<0.001). Nevertheless, SLOCT and Visante OCT measurement of CCT had 95% limits of agreement comparable to that of ultrasound pachymetry. The best agreement was observed in the manual SLOCT measurement (95% limits of agreement between -15.5 and 11.7 microm). CONCLUSIONS: Both SLOCT and Visante OCT automatic and manual CCT measurements were reliable and showed comparable agreement with ultrasound pachymetry. Although the 2 anterior segment OCT imaging systems have similar design and working principles, clinicians should be aware of the differences in CCT measurement between the 2 anterior segment OCTs.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]