May 2004
Volume 45, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2004
Comparison of 3 different corneal thickness measurements in eyes with keratoconus
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • K. Kawana
    Dept of Ophthalmology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
    Tsuchiura Kyodo General Hospital, Tsuchiura, Japan
  • T. Hiraoka
    Dept of Ophthalmology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
  • F. Okamoto
    Dept of Ophthalmology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
  • Y. Kaji
    Dept of Ophthalmology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
  • T. Oshika
    Dept of Ophthalmology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
  • T. Tokunaga
    Miyata Eye Hospital, Miyazaki, Japan
  • K. Miyata
    Miyata Eye Hospital, Miyazaki, Japan
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  K. Kawana, None; T. Hiraoka, None; F. Okamoto, None; Y. Kaji, None; T. Oshika, None; T. Tokunaga, None; K. Miyata, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  none
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2004, Vol.45, 2892. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      K. Kawana, T. Hiraoka, F. Okamoto, Y. Kaji, T. Oshika, T. Tokunaga, K. Miyata; Comparison of 3 different corneal thickness measurements in eyes with keratoconus . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004;45(13):2892.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: Three different central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements using Orbscan II scanning–slit topography, Topcon SP–2000P noncontact specular microscopy, and ultrasonic pachymetry have been compared and reported for normal eyes and post–LASIK eyes. In this study, we compared CCT measurements of 3 pachymetry devices in eyes with keratoconus. Methods: CCT was measured in 21 eyes with keratoconus. Eyes with apparent corneal opacity were excluded. Scanning–slit topography, noncontact specular microscopy, and ultrasonic pachymetry were used in this sequence. The acoustic equivalent correlation factor was used for Orbscan readings. Results: Three devices gave significantly different CCT readings (P < .005, ANOVA). Orbscan measurements (449.5 ± 43.2 [SD] µm) were significantly smaller than those of noncontact specular microscopy (476.7 ± 28.3 µm; P = .002, Bonferroni multiple comparison) and ultrasonic pachymetry (485.0 ± 29.3 µm; P < .001). There were significant linear correlations between scanning–slit topography and the noncontact specular microscopy (Pearson’s correlation coefficient r = 0.880, P < .0001, best fit line; y = 105.8 + 0.765 x), noncontact specular microscopy and ultrasonic pachymetry (r = 0.811, P < .0001, y = 214.4 + 0.584 x), and ultrasonic pachymetry and scanning–slit topography (r = .741, P < .0001, y = 265.3 + 0.489 x). Conclusions: Orbscan II scanning–slit topography system significantly underestimated CCT in eyes with keratoconus compared to other two devices. Measurements taken by noncontact specular microscopy and ultrasonic pachymetry were considered to be same. Three devices had significant linear correlations with each other.

Keywords: keratoconus • cornea: clinical science 
×
×

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.

×