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