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 and peripheral corneal thickness measurements with scanning-slit, Scheimpflug and Fourier-domain ocular coherence tomography.
    Author: Randleman JB, Lynn MJ, Perez-Straziota CE, Weissman HM, Kim SW.
    Journal: Br J Ophthalmol; 2015 Sep; 99(9):1176-81. PubMed ID: 25824260.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare central, regional and relational corneal thickness values obtained with multiple technologies in normal patients and to determine their equivalence and interchangeability. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 100 eyes from 50 patients evaluated by ultrasound pachymetry (Pachette II), scanning-slit (Orbscan II), Scheimpflug (Pentacam HR) and spectral-domain ocular coherence tomography (OCT) (RTVue-100) obtained as average values (OCT-A) and point measurements (OCT-P). Measurements included central corneal thickness (CCT) for all technologies and thinnest corneal thickness for scanning-slit, Scheimpflug and OCT. Peripheral thickness measurements were obtained at the 3 mm radius in the superior (S), nasal (N), inferior (I) and temporal (T) regions. RESULTS: CCT values were: 563.9±36.1μ ultrasound, 570.9±36.1μ scanning-slit, 552.8±33.8μ Scheimpflug, 550.5±32.7μ (OCT-A), 549.4±32.7μ (OCT-P). Ultrasound and scanning-slit were significantly different from each other (p<0.0001), and both were significantly different from all other devices (p<0.0001), while Scheimpflug was similar to OCT-A and OCT-P (p=0.4). Differences between CCT and thinnest corneal thickness were significantly different from all technologies except scanning-slit and OCT-A. For peripheral values, almost all locations' measurements were significantly different from one another (p<0.0001). Superior-inferior values and ratios were also significantly different from one another for almost all devices with no consistent patterns detectible. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant clinically relevant differences between regional and relational thickness measurements obtained with ultrasound, scanning-slit, Scheimpflug and OCT devices. Screening metrics devised for one system do not appear directly applicable to other measurement systems.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]