Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements using different imaging devices and ultrasound pachymetry.
Adult
Aged
Biometry
/ instrumentation
Cataract
/ diagnosis
Cornea
/ diagnostic imaging
Corneal Pachymetry
/ instrumentation
Corneal Topography
/ instrumentation
Equipment Design
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
ROC Curve
Reproducibility of Results
Tomography, Optical Coherence
/ instrumentation
Young Adult
Corneal thickness
corneal topography
optical biometry
Journal
Indian journal of ophthalmology
ISSN: 1998-3689
Titre abrégé: Indian J Ophthalmol
Pays: India
ID NLM: 0405376
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2019
Apr 2019
Historique:
entrez:
23
3
2019
pubmed:
23
3
2019
medline:
18
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements obtained by the AL-Scan, Lenstar LS900, Galilei, and ultrasound pachymetry (UP) in normal and cataractous eyes. Eighty eyes of healthy subjects were included in the study. Each subject was assessed by four different methods of measurements using the AL-Scan, Lenstar LS900, Galilei, and UP by a single examiner. To assess the intraobserver repeatability, three consecutive measurements were taken for the AL-Scan. The mean CCT [± standard deviation (SD)] for the AL-Scan, Lenstar LS900, Galilei, and UP were 554.6 ± 30.9 μm, 542.9 ± 31.3 μm, 570.7 ± 30 μm, and 552.7 ± 32.8 μm, respectively. The differences between pairs of mean CCT for the methods are statistically significant for the pairs of Galilei-UP, AL-Scan-Galilei, and Lenstar LS900-Galilei. Bland-Altman plots showed that AL-Scan-UP have the closest agreement, followed by Lenstar-UP and AL-Scan-Lenstar. Galilei was found to have the poorest agreement with the other three methods. The intraobserver repeatability of the AL-Scan was very good with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.980. We found that CCT measurements between the AL-Scan-UP, Lenstar LS900-UP, and AL-Scan-Lenstar LS900 showed very strong correlation and comparable agreement. AL-Scan-UP showed the closest agreement and these devices can be used interchangeably in clinical practice. Galilei significantly showed higher value of CCT compared to other methods. It was also observed that the Al-Scan had excellent intraobserver repeatability.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30900581
pii: IndianJOphthalmol_2019_67_4_496_254734
doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_960_18
pmc: PMC6446636
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
496-499Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
None
Références
Ophthalmology. 2004 May;111(5):875-9
pubmed: 15121362
Am J Ophthalmol. 2004 Jun;137(6):1011-20
pubmed: 15183784
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1992 Jun;33(7):2325-33
pubmed: 1607244
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005 Sep;31(9):1729-35
pubmed: 16246776
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008 Oct;34(10):1742-7
pubmed: 18812127
Br J Ophthalmol. 2009 Jul;93(7):949-53
pubmed: 19380310
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009 Jun;35(6):1055-62
pubmed: 19465292
Cornea. 2010 Oct;29(10):1091-5
pubmed: 20628301
Indian J Ophthalmol. 2010 Sep-Oct;58(5):385-8
pubmed: 20689192
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2011 Mar-Apr;21(2):132-7
pubmed: 20872361
Cornea. 2012 Nov;31(11):1278-81
pubmed: 22262222
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012 May;38(5):758-64
pubmed: 22436868
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014 May;40(5):709-15
pubmed: 24656166
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014 Jul;40(7):1170-6
pubmed: 24852197