September 2009
Volume 50, Issue 9
Free
Cornea  |   September 2009
Reliability of Noncontact Pachymetry after Laser In Situ Keratomileusis
Author Affiliations
  • Miguel J. Maldonado
    From the Department of Ophthalmology, University Clinic, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain;
    IOBA (Institute of Applied Ophthalmobiology), University of Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain; the
  • Alberto López-Miguel
    From the Department of Ophthalmology, University Clinic, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain;
  • Juan C. Nieto
    From the Department of Ophthalmology, University Clinic, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain;
  • Juan Cano-Parra
    Municipal Hospital Badalona, Barcelona, Spain; the
  • Begoña Calvo
    Group of Structural Mechanics and Materials Modeling (GEMM), Aragon Institute of Engineering Research (I3A), University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain; the
    Networking Center on Bioengineering, Biomaterials and Nanomedicine (CIBER-BBN), Aragon Institute of Health (ICS), Zaragoza, Spain; and the
  • Jorge L. Alió
    Vissum-Instituto Oftalmológico de Alicante, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Alicante, Spain.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science September 2009, Vol.50, 4135-4141. doi:10.1167/iovs.09-3408
  • Views
  • PDF
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Miguel J. Maldonado, Alberto López-Miguel, Juan C. Nieto, Juan Cano-Parra, Begoña Calvo, Jorge L. Alió; Reliability of Noncontact Pachymetry after Laser In Situ Keratomileusis. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2009;50(9):4135-4141. doi: 10.1167/iovs.09-3408.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

purpose. To assess the repeatability and reproducibility of central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements obtained by combined scanning-slit/Placido-disc topography (Orbscan II; Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY) after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and to compare the results with another noncontact method, specular microscopy (SP-2000P; Topcon, Tokyo, Japan).

methods. To analyze intrasession repeatability, one examiner measured 22 postmyopic LASIK eyes 10 times successively in the shortest time possible, using both devices randomly. To study intersession reproducibility, the same operator obtained measurements from another 50 eyes with stable refraction in two consecutive visits at the same time of the day between 6 and 9 months after myopic LASIK. Any association between residual stromal bed thickness and measurement variability was recorded and evaluated.

results. For intrasession repeatability, Orbscan II and Topcon SP-2000P CCT measurements showed a repeatability of 20.2 (4.3%) and 12.8 (2.6%) μm, respectively. Both devices yielded excellent intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC; 0.98 and 0.99, respectively). For intersession reproducibility, no difference in CCT measurements was found. The coefficient of intersession reproducibility were 6.7% (29.5 μm) for Orbscan II and 4.3% (19.5 μm) for Topcon SP-2000P CCT measurements. The ICCs (0.95 and 0.96, respectively) indicated good intersession reliability. Repeatability and reproducibility with both devices were unrelated to stromal bed thickness.

conclusions. Both noncontact pachymeters provide repeatable CCT measurements in transparent postmyopic LASIK corneas after the early postoperative period. Intersession variations in CCT of more than 29 μm with the Orbscan II and 19 μm with the Topcon SP-2000P may reflect true corneal change. These estimates should help investigators and clinicians differentiate actual CCT modification from measurement variability.

Scanning-slit topography (SST) analysis of corneal thickness is a popular imaging tool for assessing corneal disease, for refractive and nonrefractive surgical procedures, and for following up patients who have undergone laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK). 1 2 3 4 5 6 Nevertheless, there are two possible sources of error with any measurement instrument: systematic (accuracy, bias, or calibration errors) and random (precision). 7 Both errors can have important clinical implications. In SST, systematic errors tend to bias estimates of central corneal thickness (CCT), which could affect the preoperative assessment of candidates for LASIK enhancement procedures, 5 6 8 9 the calculation of the intraocular lens power after LASIK, 10 11 12 and the contribution of CCT to the intraocular pressure measurement after surgery. 13 14 Random errors also may artificially alter the CCT measurement, leading the clinician to err in retreatment decisions or misdiagnose early iatrogenic keratectasia, for example, when observing patients after LASIK. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Refractive regression associated with increased CCT suggests corneal epithelial hyperplasia, 22 whereas a postoperative myopic error with a constant CCT can indicate progressive myopia and/or with decreasing CCT, a clinical or subclinical ectatic process. 23 24 SST pachymetry has the advantage over ultrasound pachymetry of not requiring corneal anesthesia and of using a contact probe that in turn reduces iatrogenic epithelial alterations, the risk of microbial contamination, 25 and flap dislocation that can occur, even after minor trauma. 26 However, some factors may cause errors in SST measurements, making the reliability of this system questionable. 1 20 27 It is therefore crucial to assess the random errors in SST—namely, repeatability and reproducibility—to determine its precision and validity in patients who have undergone LASIK. 7 28  
In several studies, investigators have evaluated the CCT reliability of the SST alone 29 and combined with Placido-disc videokeratography 30 31 32 (Orbscan I and II, respectively; Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY) in normal corneas. In addition, the accuracy but not the precision of Orbscan II pachymetry in contrast to ultrasound has been studied in post-LASIK corneas. 5 6 33 Therefore, there is an absence of information regarding the precision of Orbscan II pachymetry in post-LASIK eyes. 
Noncontact specular microscopy (NCSM) is also widely used in clinical practice to measure corneal endothelial cell density and CCT. 34 In normal corneas, the intraobserver reproducibility of NCSM has been reported, 35 and its accuracy with respect to ultrasound pachymetry has been established. 36 However, there are no consistent definitions of reproducibility and repeatability, and to the best of our knowledge, no study has been undertaken to evaluate them specifically in post-LASIK corneas. 
One purpose of this study was to quantify for the first time both the reproducibility and repeatability of the Orbscan II topographer and Topcon NCSM (SP-2000P specular pachometer; Topcon Corp., Tokyo, Japan) in eyes treated with LASIK using definitions of reproducibility and repeatability based on those of the International Standards Organization, 37 38 as recommended by Bland and Altman. 37 It is also worth assessing the performance of the equipment when the residual posterior stroma is of borderline thickness, because this subset of eyes may be more prone to structural instability. 1 39 Thus, another study objective was analysis of the precision of these two systems in post-LASIK corneas regarding the stromal bed thickness. 
Materials and Methods
All procedures were performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. All candidates received detailed information about the nature of the investigation, and all provided informed consent. The study was approved by The University of Navarra Clinic Review Committee. We selected consecutive patients who had refractive stability on two successive visits at least 2 months apart. 
The patients were recruited over a 2-year period. Exclusion criteria consisted of suspected keratectasia, progressive myopia, or astigmatism (patients with a change of 0.25 D and/or ≥15° in cycloplegic refractive cylinder orientation were excluded), preoperative or post-LASIK hyperopia, mixed astigmatism, active ocular disease, connective tissue disorders, and pregnancy. All eyes underwent a complete ophthalmic examination before and after LASIK, including manifest and cycloplegic refractions, Orbscan II pachymetry, tangential videokeratography, noncontact specular pachymetry, slit lamp microscopy, applanation tonometry, and indirect ophthalmoscopy. 
One experienced technician was assigned to each instrument to minimize variations in the results. The examiners were masked to the refraction and the postoperative time interval at each examination. Central pachymetry also was performed by Topcon NCSM. Noncontact specular pachymetry was performed immediately before or after Orbscan II pachymetry; the order of the modalities was random. 
During LASIK follow-up, objective measurement of corneal transparency was performed with digital imaging analysis of anterior slit lamp photographs, as previously reported. 40 41 We also assessed the central stromal bed thickness using optical coherence tomography. 42 The measurements were confirmed to be within 10 μm during LASIK enhancement with a portable ultrasound pachometer (Corneo-Gage Plus II; Sonogage Inc, Cleveland, OH). 43 One eye of each patient was selected randomly for this study. No patient was lost to follow-up. 
Study Design
Our definitions of reproducibility and repeatability were based on those adopted by the British Standards Institution and the International Standards Organization. 37 38  
Intrasession Repeatability.
Under repeatability conditions, independent test results were obtained using the same method, on the same subject, with the same operator, and on the same equipment with the shortest time possible between successive sets of readings. We investigated the repeatability by performing 10 examinations of 22 eyes after ensuring proper focusing of the entire cornea. 
Intersession Reproducibility.
Under reproducibility conditions, sets of readings were obtained by using the same method, but with one variation in the experimental set up. In this part of the study, we investigated intersession reproducibility in 50 eyes by performing examinations 6 and 9 months after surgery by the same experienced operator. Examinations were performed during a specific period (11 AM to 1 PM) to minimize the effect of diurnal variations in corneal thickness. 44 45  
Surgical Procedures
All procedures were performed by the same surgeon (MJM). The details of the primary LASIK procedures have been reported. 17 21 42 The preoperative CCT had to be adequate to ensure a residual stromal bed of at least 250 μm over 55% of the total preoperative CCT after creating a superiorly hinged corneal flap (160-μm head; Hansatome microkeratome; Chiron Vision, Claremont, CA). Ablation of the appropriate cut depth was performed with an excimer laser (Technolas Keracor 217z; Bausch & Lomb-Chiron Technolas GmbH, Munich, Germany). 
CCT Evaluation
The same examiner calibrated the Orbscan II unit before each session. The patient was instructed to fixate on a flickering red light. Before proceeding, the patient was instructed to blink to obtain a homogeneous tear film layer. The instrument then was aligned and the cornea was scanned by a slit beam. The Orbscan II statistical analysis device (software ver. 3.12) calculated the elevation of the anterior and posterior corneal surfaces; thus, the pachymetry is the result of subtracting the elevation map of both corneal surfaces. 1 Although Orbscan II displays pachymetry values at several locations, only the central pachymetry measurement was analyzed because it enabled comparison with Topcon NCSM, which provides CCT values. The default acoustic equivalent setting recommended by the manufacturer was used throughout the study. 
For Topcon NSCM pachymetry, the patient was positioned with the chin in a cup and forehead against a headband. The CCT was measured while the subject focused on a fixation light in the instrument. After proper positioning of the alignment dot, circle, and bar on the screen, pachymetry was performed. The automated image capture, low-intensity mode of the specular microscope was used as described previously. 34  
Statistical Analyses
Data from the prospectively completed forms were entered into a database, and statistical calculations were performed (SPSS, ver. 11.0 for Windows; SPSS, Chicago, IL). The mean and SD were calculated for normally distributed data. When data did not correspond to a normal distribution, the median (50th percentile) and interquartile range (IR, values between the 25th and 75th percentiles of the distribution) were used. For all statistical tests, a two-tailed P < 0.05 was considered significant. 
Intrasession Repeatability.
We calculated the within-subject SD (s w) 7 of the 10 consecutive measurements performed on each eye by obtaining the square root of the value called the residual mean square in the one-way analysis of variance. 7 46 Repeatability was defined as (2.77 × s w). 7 46 In addition, we expressed the repeatability as a percentage of the mean measurement for each category of measurement (coefficient of repeatability = 2.77 × s w/mean measurement). We also calculated the within-subject coefficient of variation (CV w) 7 and the intrasession reliability of the measurement method (intraclass correlation coefficient; ICC). 7 47  
Intersession Reproducibility.
Graphs of the differences against the means were plotted to ascertain that there was no relation between the differences and the range of measurement and that the differences between measurements were approximately normally distributed. 7 37 The 95% limits of agreement (LoA) then were defined as the mean difference in measurements made during the two different sessions ± 1.96 SD, with lower values indicating higher reproducibility. 7 37 We also calculated the intersession s w with the analysis of variance method. 7 As it happens, 2.77 times this s w is equal to the reproducibility of the measurement in the different sessions. In addition, we expressed the reproducibility as a percentage of the mean measurement for each category of measurement (coefficient of reproducibility = 2.77 × s w/mean measurement). We also calculated the intersession CV w. 7 The paired t-test was used to establish whether there was a significant systematic bias between measurements. The intersession reliability of the measurement method was calculated with the ICC. 47 We obtained correlation coefficients to explore any association between variables. 48  
Results
Intrasession Repeatability
Repeatability was studied in 22 eyes of 22 patients (7 men, 15 women) with an average age of 32.9 ± 7.6 years (range, 24–49). The mean preoperative myopia was −5.1 ± 2.7 D (range, −0.5 to −9.75) and median astigmatism was −0.5 D (IR, 0 to −1.25). The median residual myopia was −0.5 D (IR, −0.25 to −1.0) and astigmatism −0.5 D (IR, −0.5 to −0.75). The mean stromal bed thickness was 351.5 ± 37.3 μm (range, 278–408). Table 1shows the overall average CCTs corresponding to the repeated measures, the intrasession s w and CV w, and the repeatability. We found no association between the standard deviation and the mean of the repeated measurements (P = 0.5 and P = 0.7 for Orbscan II and Topcon NCSM, respectively), and no significant association between the stromal bed thickness and the SD (P = 0.3 and P = 0.7 for Orbscan II and Topcon NCSM, respectively). 
Excellent intrasession reliability scores were obtained for Orbscan II CCT and Topcon NCSM, the ICC and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for intrassesion repeatability were 0.98 (0.96–0.99) for Orbscan II and 0.99 (0.97–0.99) for Topcon NCSM. 
Intersession Reproducibility
Intersession reproducibility was studied in 50 eyes of 50 patients (23 men, 27 women) with average age of 34.6 ± 8.1 years (range, 26–48). The median preoperative myopia was −4.5 D (IR, −3.0 to −6.0) and the median astigmatism was −1.0 D (IR, 0 to −1.5). The median residual myopia was −0.5 D (IR, 0 to −0.75) and astigmatism was −0.5 D (IR, −0.5 to −1.0). The mean stromal bed thickness was 326.4 ± 33.2 μm (range, 264–408 μm). Corneal opacification was almost nonexistent and did not differ between the two examinations (median and IR, 0 gray levels [range, 0–3] versus 0 gray levels [range, 0–4], P = 0.9). Table 2shows the overall average CCT values corresponding to the two examinations, the intersession s w, CV w, and the reproducibility. 
Figure 1shows the Bland-Altman plots of difference versus mean for the studied Orbscan II and Topcon NCSM pachymetry values that confirmed that the variations were independent of the mean measurement value. Figure 2shows that the assumption that the distribution of differences is approximately normal is correct. We did not find a significant association between the stromal bed thickness and absolute intersession differences (P = 0.06; r s = −0.3 and P = 0.9; r s = −0.01 for Orbscan II and Topcon NCSM, respectively). Table 3shows the 95% LoA corresponding to the intersession variability. 
No systematic bias was found between measurements in the two consecutive visits with either device (Table 4) . In the study of 50 participants, the probability was 80% that the study would detect a difference in the measurements from two consecutive visits if the true difference is that shown in Table 4
Excellent intersession reliability scores were obtained for CCTs; the ICC and their 95% CIs for intersession reproducibility were 0.95 (0.91–0.97) and 0.96 (0.92–0.98) for Orbscan II and Topcon NCSM, respectively. 
Discussion
Both routine clinical practice and investigator calculations rely on knowledge of the measurement variability of CCT after LASIK. However, to our knowledge, no investigators have adequately addressed this problem with the devices we tested, which are commonly used in the clinical and research settings. 4 11 32 35 Access to accurate noninvasive pachymetry is essential for reducing the risk of corneal epithelial damage or flap displacement due to probe contact and for avoiding microbial contamination. 5 9 Despite the importance of knowing the precision (random error) of noncontact CCT after LASIK, the present study is the first appropriate statistical investigation 37 38 of the reliability of Orbscan II CCT measurements after LASIK. In addition, it was compared with another widely used noncontact pachymetry instrument, the Topcon SP-2000P specular microscope. 
Although the Orbscan II is equipped with both Placido-based topography and SST, some limitations of scanning-slit corneal topography have been reported in eyes treated with excimer laser keratorefractive surgery, notably that the accuracy of pachymetry after refractive surgery may be affected when there is loss of corneal transparency. 8 9 49 SST measures the corneal thickness by subtracting points on the posterior surface from those on the anterior surface. 1 50 Because there is substantial underestimation of the corneal thickness by Orbscan pachymetry in the early post-LASIK period, the posterior corneal elevation may not be measured accurately in these eyes. 15 Boscia et al. 49 reported a large disparity between the true curvature of the posterior surface, verified with a radiuscope and the measured curvature of the lens based on measurement of the spherical anterior and posterior surfaces. Furthermore, data from corneas in vivo may be even less accurate due to ocular movement during acquisition. 8 Another shortcoming is that the variability increases from the apex to the periphery in both calibrated test surfaces and human corneas; therefore, the pachymetry may be altered. 44 However, although Orbscan II central pachymetry may not be as accurate as ultrasound, 6 the differences can be reduced greatly by applying a proper acoustic factor 33 or by the subtraction method. 51 On the contrary, repeatability depends solely on the quality of the device itself; consequently, it cannot be modified. 
All patients underwent a complete topographic analysis of the cornea, but only CCT measurements were selected for the present study instead of the thinnest point, because the lowest pachymetry variability is in the central cornea 45 and because the central pachymetry also was measured with Topcon NCSM, allowing Orbscan II CCTs but not the thinnest points to be compared. The difference between two measurements in the same subject is expected to be less than 2.77 s w for 95% of pairs of observations. 7 46 This estimation, termed the repeatability 7 46 of the different variables studied, is presented in Table 1and corroborates the ICC findings; coefficients of repeatability of 4.3% and 2.6% indicate very good precision. We did not find a relationship between stromal bed thickness and repeatability scores, implying that whatever the source of the random error, it seems to be unrelated to the residual stroma, and that the precision of both devices’ CCT estimates is independent of stromal bed thickness. The repeatability of the Topcon NCSM appeared to be slightly better than that of the Orbscan II in post-LASIK eyes. The present study yielded excellent intrasession reliability scores (>0.9) for Orbscan II that were comparable to the ICC achieved by the Topcon NCSM. In addition, the Orbscan II CV (Table 1)did not differ markedly from the noncontact specular value, and both indicated that there was outstanding repeatability of the Orbscan II and Topcon NCSM CCT in post-LASIK corneas. Regarding Orbscan II, our reliability outcomes were similar to those of Fam et al. 30 and Rainer et al., 29 who have reported ICCs of 0.98 and 0.99, respectively, in normal corneas. Thus, our results appeared to be as good as those obtained in subjects who did not undergo a surgical procedure, although our CV (1.5%) was slightly less favorable than that (0.67%) reported by Fam et al. 30 Regarding Topcon NCSM, our CVs were more favorable than those described for CCT Topcon NCSM in nonsurgical corneas by Cho and Cheung (7.1%) 34 and Ogbuehi and Almubrad (6.8%), 35 and slightly worse than reported by Uçakhan et al. (0.2%). 52 Likewise, our ICCs were similar to those previously described for normal corneas—that is, 0.99 34 and 0.97. 52  
To assess intersession reproducibility, we obtained Orbscan II measurements 6 and 9 months after surgery in eyes with no refractive change. We selected these time points because it is typically during the medium-term follow-up that surgeons consider the stability of the refraction, topography, and pachymetry to decide whether to re-treat 16 17 and in the long-term to collect data for intraocular lens power calculations. 10 11 12 In addition, Orbscan II examinations taken early after LASIK tend to be artificially low for scanning slit pachymetry measurements and high for posterior corneal curvature (PCC) values. 1 18 19 These artifacts may be explained by the acquisition process of the Orbscan. 49 The instrument optically measures the anterior and posterior surfaces by triangulating 40 calibrated slit beam surfaces and diffusely reflected camera rays. 1 49 Ray triangulations are calculated using the actual physiologic refraction indices of the eye. The alteration in optical transparency of the anterior cornea corresponding to the edematous flap in the early postoperative period may result in light scatter with a resultant increase in the corneal refractive index. 49 As an alternative, Chakrabarti et al. 5 suggested that reconstruction algorithms may not apply to post-LASIK corneas with an oblate rather than a prolate shape; another study suggested that alterations in the magnification of the posterior surface due to surgical modification of the anterior curvature and thickness may produce artificial changes in the posterior corneal elevation data. 53  
When noncontact CCT measurements were compared at 6 and 9 months postoperatively, the mean differences (positive or negative) were not significantly different from 0 (Table 4) . It is not surprising that, on average, no difference in CCT measures was found, indicating that whatever the source of the variability, the intersession variability is random. Of interest, Orbscan II but not Topcon NCSM showed a weak inverse association between CCT variability and stromal bed thickness that approached but did not reach statistical significance. The Orbscan II and Topcon NCSM coefficient of reproducibility (6.7% and 4.3%, respectively; Table 2 ) would provide useful guidelines for the variability expected if these noncontact pachymeters are used on two consecutive visits. Therefore, these data indicate that CCT reliability is adequate when measured by Orbscan II and Topcon NCSM in different sessions after LASIK. However, the Orbscan II reproducibility (Table 2)and the 95% LoA (Table 3)were not as satisfactory as Topcon NCSM pachymetry values in the present study and in that of Ogbuehi and Almubrad 35 on normal corneas (−15 to 17 μm). Nevertheless, the 95% LoA obtained by Rah et al. 54 (−48.6 to 54.8 μm) with ultrasound pachymetry after LASIK are wider than our LoAs. Although Marsich and Bullimore 55 found a narrower 95% LoA (−10.0 to +16.6 μm) when assessing Orbscan CCT, they analyzed eyes that had not undergone LASIK. Our reproducibility ICCs (0.95 and 0.96) were also slightly lower but in the range of normal corneas (0.98) tested with Topcon NCSM. 34  
The present study had several limitations. Because Topcon NCSM does not provide the thinnest pachymetry measurement, which in most cases lies in the inferotemporal quadrant, 50 we analyzed the reproducibility of CCT. One should expect it would be lower considering the added difficulty in identifying the thinnest point from measurement to measurement. The present study did not address post-LASIK ectasia. However, eyes with ectatic disorders should yield less reproducible CCT measurements as previously shown in keratoconic eyes. 52 The present study focused on a typical setting with an experienced operator taking successive examinations. However, we did not study interobserver reproducibility, and the results obtained by novice examiners should be worse than ours. Finally, we evaluated the random error, rather than agreement, when measuring CCT after LASIK for myopia with two noncontact methods under repeatability and reproducibility conditions. It has been reported that Orbscan II CCT measurements clearly underestimate those obtained by ultrasound pachymetry in patients who have undergone LASIK, 9 and we found a similar bias with respect to Topcon NCSM. However, such a systematic error could be corrected by adequate instrument calibration by changing the acoustic factor 33 or using the subtraction method 51 as opposed to random errors, which cannot be corrected and reflect the inherent construction quality of the instrument for the given application. 
In conclusion, given that noncontact pachymetry is now used by many ophthalmologists and investigators for the assessment of the LASIK patient in the medium and long-term follow-up, it is important to obtain an estimate of the reproducibility of CCT measurements in these patients to differentiate clinical change from measurement variability. The present study showed that Orbscan II and Topcon NCSM data can be used in patients who undergo LASIK for myopia to obtain a reproducible measure of CCT, and we provide the criteria for a significant change, which would be one exceeding the repeatability/reproducibility (2.77s w) 7 of the estimate. Orbscan II and Topcon NCSM reliably measure CCT, since the random errors were clinically acceptable, although Topcon NCSM provided generally better repeatability and reproducibility scores. The precision of these measures of CCT in the medium-term follow-up of eyes that undergo LASIK for myopia was adequate and independent of the residual bed thickness and, therefore, they are clinically useful in the assessment and longitudinal long-term follow-up of post-LASIK eyes with transparent corneas. 
 
Table 1.
 
Intrasession Repeatability
Table 1.
 
Intrasession Repeatability
Pachymetry Method Overall Mean (Range) s w (95% CI) Repeatability (Coefficient of R) CV w (%) (95% CI)
Orbscan II SST pachymetry (μm) 474.9 (380/548) 7.31 (6.59/8.03) 20.2 (4.3%) 1.5 (1.3/1.8)
Topcon NCSM pachymetry (μm) 482.8 (409/539) 4.61 (4.15/5.06) 12.8 (2.6%) 1.0 (0.6/1.2)
Table 2.
 
Intersession Reproducibility
Table 2.
 
Intersession Reproducibility
Pachymetry Method Overall Mean (Range) s w Reproducibility (Coefficient of R) CV w (%)
Orbscan II SST pachymetry (μm) 441.3 (353/533) 10.64 29.5 (6.7%) 2.41
Topcon NCSM pachymetry (μm) 456.7 (397/540) 7.05 19.5 (4.3%) 1.54
Figure 1.
 
Data from the intersession reproducibility study. The differences between visits in each eye are plotted against the mean. Solid lines: the average difference between sessions; dashed lines: the width of the 95% limits of agreement. (A) Orbscan II pachymetry and (B) Topcon NCSM measurements.
Figure 1.
 
Data from the intersession reproducibility study. The differences between visits in each eye are plotted against the mean. Solid lines: the average difference between sessions; dashed lines: the width of the 95% limits of agreement. (A) Orbscan II pachymetry and (B) Topcon NCSM measurements.
Figure 2.
 
The distribution of differences in the Orbscan II and Topcon NCSM measurements between sessions. (A) Orbscan II pachymetry and (B) Topcon NCSM measurements.
Figure 2.
 
The distribution of differences in the Orbscan II and Topcon NCSM measurements between sessions. (A) Orbscan II pachymetry and (B) Topcon NCSM measurements.
Table 3.
 
95% LoA
Table 3.
 
95% LoA
Pachymetry Method Lower LoA (95% CI) Upper LoA (95% CI) Width of (95%) LoA
Orbscan II SST pachymetry (μm) −32.1 (−35.1; 29.1) 26.4 (23.4; 29.4) 58.5
Topcon NCSM pachymetry (μm) −19.1 (−21.6; −16.7) 20.3 (17.9; 22.8) 39.4
Table 4.
 
Mean Difference between Intersession Measurements
Table 4.
 
Mean Difference between Intersession Measurements
Pachymetry Method Mean Difference (95% CI) P * Minimal Detectable Difference
Orbscan II SST pachymetry (μm) −2.84 (−7.08 to −1.40) 0.185 5.91
Topcon NCSM pachymetry (μm) 0.60 (2.32 to −3.52) 0.679 3.99
CairnsG, McGheeCN. Orbscan computerized topography: attributes, applications, and limitations. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:205–220. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
SultanG, BaudouinC, AuzerieO, et al. Cornea in Marfan disease: Orbscan and in vivo confocal microscopy analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:1757–1764. [PubMed]
GherghelD, HoskingSL, MantryS, BanerjeeS, NarooSA, ShahS. Corneal pachymetry in normal and keratoconic eyes: Orbscan II versus ultrasound. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004;30:1272–1277. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
HashemiH, MehravaranS. Corneal changes after laser refractive surgery for myopia: comparison of Orbscan II and Pentacam findings. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007;33:841–847. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
ChakrabartiHS, CraigJP, BrahmaA, MalikTY, McGheeCN. Comparison of corneal thickness measurements using ultrasound and Orbscan slit-scanning topography in normal and post-LASIK eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001;27:1823–1828. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
JavaloyJ, VidalMT, VilladaJR, ArtolaA, AlioJL. Comparison of four corneal pachymetry techniques in corneal refractive surgery. J Refract Surg. 2004;20:29–34. [PubMed]
BlandM. An Introduction to Medical Statistics. 2000; 3rd ed. 268–275.Oxford University Press Oxford, UK.
KawanaK, TokunagaT, MiyataK, OkamotoF, KiuchiT, OshikaT. Comparison of corneal thickness measurements using Orbscan II, non-contact specular microscopy, and ultrasonic pachymetry in eyes after laser in situ keratomileusis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004;88:466–468. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
PrisantO, CalderonN, ChastangP, GatinelD, Hoang-XuanT. Reliability of pachymetric measurements using Orbscan after excimer refractive surgery. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:511–515. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
BorasioE, StevensJ, SmithGT. Estimation of true corneal power after keratorefractive surgery in eyes requiring cataract surgery: BESSt formula. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006;32:2004–2014. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
QaziMA, CuaIY, RobertsCJ, PeposeJS. Determining corneal power using Orbscan II videokeratography for intraocular lens calculation after excimer laser surgery for myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007;33:21–30. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
HamedAM, WangL, MisraM, KochDD. A comparative analysis of five methods of determining corneal refractive power in eyes that have undergone myopic laser in situ keratomileusis. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:651–858. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
LeeDH, SeoS, ShinSC, ChungEH, TurnerTT. Accuracy and predictability of the compensatory function of Orbscan II in intraocular pressure measurements after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002;28:259–264. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
EmaraB, ProbstLE, TingeyDP, KennedyDW, WillmsLJ, MachatJ. Correlation of intraocular pressure and central corneal thickness in normal myopic eyes and after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998;24:1320–1325. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
MiyataK, TokunagaT, NakaharaM, et al. Residual bed thickness and corneal forward shift after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004;30:1067–1072. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
HollandSP, SrivannaboonS, ReinsteinDZ. Avoiding serious corneal complications of laser assisted in situ keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:640–652. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
MaldonadoMJ. Undersurface ablation of the flap for laser in situ keratomileusis retreatment. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:1453–1464. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
LeeDH, SeoS, JeongKW, ShinSC, VukichJA. Early spatial changes in the posterior corneal surface after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003;29:778–784. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
KamiyaK, MiyataK, TokunagaT, KiuchiT, HiraokaT, OshikaT. Structural analysis of the cornea using scanning-slit corneal topography in eyes undergoing excimer laser refractive surgery. Cornea. 2004;23(8 suppl)S59–S64. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
MaloneyRK. In discussion of: Wang Z, Chen J, Yang B. Posterior corneal surface topographic changes after laser in situ keratomileusis are related to residual corneal bed thickness. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:409–410. [CrossRef]
MaldonadoMJ, NietoJC, Diez-cuencaM, PiñeroDP. Posterior corneal curvature changes after undersurface ablation of the flap and in-the-bed LASIK retreatment. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:1125–1133. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
SpadeaL, FascianiR, NecozioneS, BalestrazziE. Role of the corneal epithelium in refractive changes following laser in situ keratomileusis for high myopia. J Refract Surg. 2000;16:133–139. [PubMed]
PanQ, GuYS, WangJ, et al. Differences between regressive eyes and non-regressive eyes after LASIK for myopia in the time course of corneal changes assessed with the Orbscan. Ophthalmologica. 2004;218:96–101. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
PallikarisIG, KymionisGD, AstyrakakisNI. Corneal ectasia induced by laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001;27:1796–1802. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
MaldonadoMJ. Corneal epithelial alterations resulting from use of chlorine-disinfected contact tonometer after myopic photorefractive keratectomy. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:1546–1549. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
MaldonadoMJ, JuberiasJR. Subtarsal flap dislocation after superior hinge laser in situ keratomileusis in a patient with borderline mental illness. J Refract Surg. 2003;19:169–171. [PubMed]
González PérezJ, CervinoA, GiráldezMJ, ParafitaM, Yebra-PimentelE. Accuracy and precision of EyeSys and Orbscan systems on calibrated spherical test surfaces. Eye Contact Lens. 2004;30:74–78. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
HuangD. A reliable corneal tomography system is still needed. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:455–456. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
RainerG, FindlO, PetternelV, et al. Central corneal thickness measurements with partial coherence interferometry, ultrasound, and the Orbscan system. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:875–879. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
FamHB, LimKL, ReinsteinDZ. Orbscan global pachymetry: analysis of repeated measures. Optom Vis Sci. 2005;82:1047–1053. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
SuzukiS, OshikaT, OkiK, et al. Corneal thickness measurements: scanning-slit corneal topography and noncontact specular microscopy versus ultrasonic pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003;29:1313–1318. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
AmanoS, HondaN, AmanoY, et al. Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by rotating Scheimpflug camera, ultrasonic pachymetry, and scanning-slit corneal topography. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:937–941. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
HoT, ChengAC, RaoSK, LauS, LeungCK, LamDS. Central corneal thickness measurements using Orbscan II, Visante, ultrasound, and Pentacam pachymetry after laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007;33:1177–1182. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
ChoP, CheungSW. Central and peripheral corneal thickness measured with the Topcon specular microscope SP-2000P. Curr Eye Res. 2000;21:799–807. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
OgbuehiKC, AlmubradTM. Repeatability of central corneal thickness measurements measured with the Topcon SP2000P specular microscope. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005;243:798–802. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
FujiokaM, NakamuraM, TatsumiY, KusuharaA, MaedaH, NegiA. Comparison of Pentacam Scheimpflug camera with ultrasound pachymetry and noncontact specular microscopy in measuring central corneal thickness. Curr Eye Res. 2007;32:89–94. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
BlandJM, AltmanDG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–310. [PubMed]
MuscatS, McKayN, ParksS, KempE, KeatingD. Repeatability and reproducibility of corneal thickness measurements by optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:1791–1795. [PubMed]
SeitzB, TorresF, LangenbucherA, BehrensA, SuarezE. Posterior corneal curvature changes after myopic laser in situ keratomileusis. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:666–672, discussion 673. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
MaldonadoMJ, ArnauV, NaveaA, et al. Direct objective quantification of corneal haze after excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy for high myopia. Ophthalmology. 1996;103:1970–1978. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
MaldonadoMJ, ArnauV, Martinez-CostaR, et al. Reproducibility of digital image analysis for measuring corneal haze after myopic photorefractive keratectomy. Am J Ophthalmol. 1997;123:31–41. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
MaldonadoMJ, Ruiz-OblitasL, MunueraJM. Optical coherence tomography evaluation of the corneal cap and stromal bed features after laser in situ keratomileusis for high myopia and astigmatism. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:81–87, discussion 88. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
MaldonadoMJ, JuveriasJR, Rodriguez-CondeR. Corneal flap thickness and tissue laser ablation in myopic LASIK. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:1042–1043. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
LattimoreMR, Jr, KauppS, SchallhornS, LewisR, 4th. Orbscan pachymetry: implications of a repeated measures and diurnal variation analysis. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:977–981. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Gonzalez-MeijomeJM, CervinoA, Yebra-PimentelE, ParafitaMA. Central and peripheral corneal thickness measurement with Orbscan II and topographical ultrasound pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003;29:125–132. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
BlandJM, AltmanDG. Measurement error. BMJ. 1996;313:744. [PubMed]
BlandJM, AltmanDG. Measurement error and correlation coefficients. BMJ. 1996;313:41–42. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
BlandJM, AltmanDG. Measurement error proportional to the mean. BMJ. 1996;313:106. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
BosciaF, La TegolaMG, AlessioG, SborgiaC. Accuracy of Orbscan optical pachymetry in corneas with haze. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002;28:253–258. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
ModisL, Jr, LangenbucherA, SeitzB. Evaluation of normal corneas using the scanning-slit topography/pachymetry system. Cornea. 2004;23:689–694. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
ChengAC, TangE, MohamedS, LamDs. Correction factor in Orbscan II in the assessment of corneal pachymetry. Cornea. 2006;25:1158–1161. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
UçakhanOO, OzkanM, KanpolatA. Corneal thickness measurements in normal and keratoconic eyes: Pentacam comprehensive eye scanner versus noncontact specular microscopy and ultrasound pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006;32:970–977. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
NawaY, MasudaK, UedaT, HaraY, UozatoH. Evaluation of apparent ectasia of the posterior surface of the cornea after keratorefractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:571–573. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
RahMJ, DengL, JacksonJM. Reproducibility of ultrasound pachymetry using the Sonogage Corneo-Gage Plus 2. Optometry. 2006;77:392–396. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
MarsichMW, BullimoreMA. The repeatability of corneal thickness measures. Cornea. 2000;19:792–795. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1.
 
Data from the intersession reproducibility study. The differences between visits in each eye are plotted against the mean. Solid lines: the average difference between sessions; dashed lines: the width of the 95% limits of agreement. (A) Orbscan II pachymetry and (B) Topcon NCSM measurements.
Figure 1.
 
Data from the intersession reproducibility study. The differences between visits in each eye are plotted against the mean. Solid lines: the average difference between sessions; dashed lines: the width of the 95% limits of agreement. (A) Orbscan II pachymetry and (B) Topcon NCSM measurements.
Figure 2.
 
The distribution of differences in the Orbscan II and Topcon NCSM measurements between sessions. (A) Orbscan II pachymetry and (B) Topcon NCSM measurements.
Figure 2.
 
The distribution of differences in the Orbscan II and Topcon NCSM measurements between sessions. (A) Orbscan II pachymetry and (B) Topcon NCSM measurements.
Table 1.
 
Intrasession Repeatability
Table 1.
 
Intrasession Repeatability
Pachymetry Method Overall Mean (Range) s w (95% CI) Repeatability (Coefficient of R) CV w (%) (95% CI)
Orbscan II SST pachymetry (μm) 474.9 (380/548) 7.31 (6.59/8.03) 20.2 (4.3%) 1.5 (1.3/1.8)
Topcon NCSM pachymetry (μm) 482.8 (409/539) 4.61 (4.15/5.06) 12.8 (2.6%) 1.0 (0.6/1.2)
Table 2.
 
Intersession Reproducibility
Table 2.
 
Intersession Reproducibility
Pachymetry Method Overall Mean (Range) s w Reproducibility (Coefficient of R) CV w (%)
Orbscan II SST pachymetry (μm) 441.3 (353/533) 10.64 29.5 (6.7%) 2.41
Topcon NCSM pachymetry (μm) 456.7 (397/540) 7.05 19.5 (4.3%) 1.54
Table 3.
 
95% LoA
Table 3.
 
95% LoA
Pachymetry Method Lower LoA (95% CI) Upper LoA (95% CI) Width of (95%) LoA
Orbscan II SST pachymetry (μm) −32.1 (−35.1; 29.1) 26.4 (23.4; 29.4) 58.5
Topcon NCSM pachymetry (μm) −19.1 (−21.6; −16.7) 20.3 (17.9; 22.8) 39.4
Table 4.
 
Mean Difference between Intersession Measurements
Table 4.
 
Mean Difference between Intersession Measurements
Pachymetry Method Mean Difference (95% CI) P * Minimal Detectable Difference
Orbscan II SST pachymetry (μm) −2.84 (−7.08 to −1.40) 0.185 5.91
Topcon NCSM pachymetry (μm) 0.60 (2.32 to −3.52) 0.679 3.99
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×