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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |