April 2009
Volume 50, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2009
Comparison of Orbscan IIz, Pentacam and Ultrasound Pachymetry in Centre and Mid-periphery
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • D. R. Mukhopadhyay
    School of Optometry and Vision Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom
  • R. V. North
    School of Optometry and Vision Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom
  • K. E. Hamilton
    School of Optometry and Vision Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  D.R. Mukhopadhyay, None; R.V. North, None; K.E. Hamilton, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2009, Vol.50, 2852. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      D. R. Mukhopadhyay, R. V. North, K. E. Hamilton; Comparison of Orbscan IIz, Pentacam and Ultrasound Pachymetry in Centre and Mid-periphery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2009;50(13):2852.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : Recent work has shown that CCT and mid-peripheral corneal thickness (MCT) affect the accuracy of applanation tonometry. This was a clinical study to compare methods of CCT and MCT measurement using Orbscan IIz (Bausch + Lomb, USA), Pentacam (Oculus, Germany) and ultrasound pachymetry (Sonomed, USA), to determine the most effective.

Methods: : 70 eyes of 35 normal subjects (20 female/15 male; age 30.8±10.5 years) underwent 3 corneal thickness scans using Orbscan IIz and Pentacam, and 5 measurements using ultrasound pachymetry in each of 5 corneal locations. Ultrasound MCT readings were obtained by varying fixation to change corneal location of the ultrasound probe. Mean CCT and MCT at 2.5mm from the centre superiorly, nasally, inferiorly and temporally were analysed. Repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni correction was used to make pairwise comparisons between measurements from each instrument at each position. Coefficient of variation (CoV) was calculated for each instrument.

Results: : Right eye results are summarised in the table below: Orbscan and ultrasound CCT were not significantly different (p=0.996), nor were Pentacam and ultrasound CCT (p=0.11). However, Orbscan and Pentacam CCT were significantly different (p=0.001). All other comparisons between instruments were significant in the mid-periphery (p<0.05); Orbscan MCT was highest and ultrasound MCT lowest in all positions. CoV for each method ranged from 5.1 to 7.5% in all positions.

Conclusions: : For CCT, Orbscan and ultrasound show good agreement while Pentacam is significantly lower than Orbscan. Significant differences are found between instruments in measures of four mid-peripheral locations. Therefore, the three methods cannot be interchanged reliably, particularly when considering corneal thickness beyond the centre. Ultrasound MCT values are lower than the other methods, possibly due to difficulty of correct probe placement 2.5mm out from the central cornea. CoV shows each method to have similarly low variability in all positions.

Keywords: cornea: clinical science • clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: systems/equipment/techniques • intraocular pressure 
×
×

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.

×