Cargando…

Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements using different imaging devices and ultrasound pachymetry

PURPOSE: To compare central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements obtained by the AL-Scan, Lenstar LS900, Galilei, and ultrasound pachymetry (UP) in normal and cataractous eyes. METHODS: Eighty eyes of healthy subjects were included in the study. Each subject was assessed by four different methods of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Can, Ertugrul, Eser-Ozturk, Hilal, Duran, Mustafa, Cetinkaya, Tugba, Arıturk, Nursen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6446636/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30900581
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_960_18
_version_ 1783408397729660928
author Can, Ertugrul
Eser-Ozturk, Hilal
Duran, Mustafa
Cetinkaya, Tugba
Arıturk, Nursen
author_facet Can, Ertugrul
Eser-Ozturk, Hilal
Duran, Mustafa
Cetinkaya, Tugba
Arıturk, Nursen
author_sort Can, Ertugrul
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To compare central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements obtained by the AL-Scan, Lenstar LS900, Galilei, and ultrasound pachymetry (UP) in normal and cataractous eyes. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6446636
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64466362019-04-23 Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements using different imaging devices and ultrasound pachymetry Can, Ertugrul Eser-Ozturk, Hilal Duran, Mustafa Cetinkaya, Tugba Arıturk, Nursen Indian J Ophthalmol Original Article PURPOSE: To compare central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements obtained by the AL-Scan, Lenstar LS900, Galilei, and ultrasound pachymetry (UP) in normal and cataractous eyes. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2019-04 /pmc/articles/PMC6446636/ /pubmed/30900581 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_960_18 Text en Copyright: © 2019 Indian Journal of Ophthalmology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Can, Ertugrul
Eser-Ozturk, Hilal
Duran, Mustafa
Cetinkaya, Tugba
Arıturk, Nursen
Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements using different imaging devices and ultrasound pachymetry
title Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements using different imaging devices and ultrasound pachymetry
title_full Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements using different imaging devices and ultrasound pachymetry
title_fullStr Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements using different imaging devices and ultrasound pachymetry
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements using different imaging devices and ultrasound pachymetry
title_short Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements using different imaging devices and ultrasound pachymetry
title_sort comparison of central corneal thickness measurements using different imaging devices and ultrasound pachymetry
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6446636/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30900581
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_960_18
work_keys_str_mv AT canertugrul comparisonofcentralcornealthicknessmeasurementsusingdifferentimagingdevicesandultrasoundpachymetry
AT eserozturkhilal comparisonofcentralcornealthicknessmeasurementsusingdifferentimagingdevicesandultrasoundpachymetry
AT duranmustafa comparisonofcentralcornealthicknessmeasurementsusingdifferentimagingdevicesandultrasoundpachymetry
AT cetinkayatugba comparisonofcentralcornealthicknessmeasurementsusingdifferentimagingdevicesandultrasoundpachymetry
AT arıturknursen comparisonofcentralcornealthicknessmeasurementsusingdifferentimagingdevicesandultrasoundpachymetry