Cargando…

Corneal thickness evaluation in healthy eyes: Comparison between two different Scheimpflug devices

PURPOSE: To evaluate the correlation between corneal thickness (CT) measurements obtained with two Scheimpflug devices, Pentacam HR and Precisio, and to elaborate, if necessary, a regression formula which could make these results comparable. DESIGN: Retrospective, Comparative, Observational study. S...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rosa, Nicola, De Bernardo, Maddalena, Pepe, Angela, Vitiello, Livio, Marotta, Giuseppe, Imparato, Roberto, Capasso, Luigi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7714349/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33270786
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243370
_version_ 1783618737286414336
author Rosa, Nicola
De Bernardo, Maddalena
Pepe, Angela
Vitiello, Livio
Marotta, Giuseppe
Imparato, Roberto
Capasso, Luigi
author_facet Rosa, Nicola
De Bernardo, Maddalena
Pepe, Angela
Vitiello, Livio
Marotta, Giuseppe
Imparato, Roberto
Capasso, Luigi
author_sort Rosa, Nicola
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To evaluate the correlation between corneal thickness (CT) measurements obtained with two Scheimpflug devices, Pentacam HR and Precisio, and to elaborate, if necessary, a regression formula which could make these results comparable. DESIGN: Retrospective, Comparative, Observational study. SETTING: Department of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, “Scuola Medica Salernitana” University of Salerno, Italy METHODS: One hundred twenty four healthy eyes of 124 volunteers (65 males; range: 20–32 years; mean age of 24.8 ± 1.7) were included in this study. CT was measured using Pentacam HR and Precisio in three different points: the pupil center (PC), the corneal apex (CA) and the thinnest point (TP). RESULTS: CT obtained with both devices at the PC, at the CA and at the TP showed a good correlation (r = 0.97, r = 0.97, r = 0.97, respectively), but Pentacam HR measurements were significantly thicker than those provided by Precisio (p < 0.01). The differences between Pentacam HR and Precisio were 21.9 ± 8.8 μm at the PC, 21.9 ± 8.9 μm at the CA, 19.1 ± 9.0 μm at the TP. The calculated regression formulas were: y = 0.9558x + 2.3196 for the PC, y = 0.9519x + 4.5626 for the CA, y = 0.9364x + 15.436 for the TP, where x is the CT measured with Pentacam HR and y is the Precisio measurement. CONCLUSIONS: The findings provided by this study highlight that Precisio measures thinner corneas compared to Pentacam HR. The identified regression formulas could be utilized to make interchangeable the results obtained with these two devices.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7714349
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77143492020-12-09 Corneal thickness evaluation in healthy eyes: Comparison between two different Scheimpflug devices Rosa, Nicola De Bernardo, Maddalena Pepe, Angela Vitiello, Livio Marotta, Giuseppe Imparato, Roberto Capasso, Luigi PLoS One Research Article PURPOSE: To evaluate the correlation between corneal thickness (CT) measurements obtained with two Scheimpflug devices, Pentacam HR and Precisio, and to elaborate, if necessary, a regression formula which could make these results comparable. DESIGN: Retrospective, Comparative, Observational study. SETTING: Department of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, “Scuola Medica Salernitana” University of Salerno, Italy METHODS: One hundred twenty four healthy eyes of 124 volunteers (65 males; range: 20–32 years; mean age of 24.8 ± 1.7) were included in this study. CT was measured using Pentacam HR and Precisio in three different points: the pupil center (PC), the corneal apex (CA) and the thinnest point (TP). RESULTS: CT obtained with both devices at the PC, at the CA and at the TP showed a good correlation (r = 0.97, r = 0.97, r = 0.97, respectively), but Pentacam HR measurements were significantly thicker than those provided by Precisio (p < 0.01). The differences between Pentacam HR and Precisio were 21.9 ± 8.8 μm at the PC, 21.9 ± 8.9 μm at the CA, 19.1 ± 9.0 μm at the TP. The calculated regression formulas were: y = 0.9558x + 2.3196 for the PC, y = 0.9519x + 4.5626 for the CA, y = 0.9364x + 15.436 for the TP, where x is the CT measured with Pentacam HR and y is the Precisio measurement. CONCLUSIONS: The findings provided by this study highlight that Precisio measures thinner corneas compared to Pentacam HR. The identified regression formulas could be utilized to make interchangeable the results obtained with these two devices. Public Library of Science 2020-12-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7714349/ /pubmed/33270786 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243370 Text en © 2020 Rosa et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Rosa, Nicola
De Bernardo, Maddalena
Pepe, Angela
Vitiello, Livio
Marotta, Giuseppe
Imparato, Roberto
Capasso, Luigi
Corneal thickness evaluation in healthy eyes: Comparison between two different Scheimpflug devices
title Corneal thickness evaluation in healthy eyes: Comparison between two different Scheimpflug devices
title_full Corneal thickness evaluation in healthy eyes: Comparison between two different Scheimpflug devices
title_fullStr Corneal thickness evaluation in healthy eyes: Comparison between two different Scheimpflug devices
title_full_unstemmed Corneal thickness evaluation in healthy eyes: Comparison between two different Scheimpflug devices
title_short Corneal thickness evaluation in healthy eyes: Comparison between two different Scheimpflug devices
title_sort corneal thickness evaluation in healthy eyes: comparison between two different scheimpflug devices
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7714349/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33270786
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243370
work_keys_str_mv AT rosanicola cornealthicknessevaluationinhealthyeyescomparisonbetweentwodifferentscheimpflugdevices
AT debernardomaddalena cornealthicknessevaluationinhealthyeyescomparisonbetweentwodifferentscheimpflugdevices
AT pepeangela cornealthicknessevaluationinhealthyeyescomparisonbetweentwodifferentscheimpflugdevices
AT vitiellolivio cornealthicknessevaluationinhealthyeyescomparisonbetweentwodifferentscheimpflugdevices
AT marottagiuseppe cornealthicknessevaluationinhealthyeyescomparisonbetweentwodifferentscheimpflugdevices
AT imparatoroberto cornealthicknessevaluationinhealthyeyescomparisonbetweentwodifferentscheimpflugdevices
AT capassoluigi cornealthicknessevaluationinhealthyeyescomparisonbetweentwodifferentscheimpflugdevices