SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Glokom Katarakt / 2015 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 4

Nidek AL-Scan, Galilei G4 Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer ve Cirrus HD-OCT ile Yapılan Santral Kornea Kalınlığı Ölçümlerinin Karşılaştırılması

Comparison of Central Corneal Thickness Measurements of Nidek Al-Scan, Galilei G4 Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer and Cirrus HD-OCT

MEHMET SERDAR DERVİŞOĞULLARI
Yüksel TOTAN
İsa YUVACI
Fatma Betül GÜRAĞAÇ
Pages
287–292
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

CCT measures from these instruments should be used interchangeably

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: To compare the central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements of three different devices.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Methods: CCT was measured in one eye of 41 healthy subjects , using the Nidek AL-Scan, Galilei G4 Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer and Cirrus HD-OCT (Cirrus Version 6.0).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:CCT measures from these instruments should be used interchangeably
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements of three different devices. Material and Methods: CCT was measured in one eye of 41 healthy subjects , using the Nidek AL-Scan, Galilei G4 Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer and Cirrus HD-OCT (Cirrus Version 6.0). The agreement between the measurements of three devices was assesed using the one way ANOVA test. To assess the interexaminer reproducibility, two different examiners consecutively obtained CCT measurements in 23 eyes with Nidek AL-Scan, Galilei Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer and Cirrus HD-OCT. Results: Mean±SD values for CCT using the Nidek AL-Scan, Galilei Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer and Cirrus HD-OCT were 541.04±34.91 ?m, 541.56±31.05 ?m, and 541.73±33.83 ?m respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between these three devices at measuring CCT (p=0.98). Intraclass correlation between different observers was fine (>0.9 for each device) and Bland Altman plots of observers' measurements with each device showed good agreement. Conclusions: Nidek AL-Scan, Galilei G4 Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer and Cirrus HD-OCT provide CCT measurements that are in agreement with each other and with the published values for CCT in human subjects. CCT measures from these instruments should be used interchangeably

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmada santral korneal kalınlığının (SKK) üç ayrı cihaz ile ölçümleri karşılaştırılmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmada ortalama yaşı 29.6±7.23 olan 41 hastaya aynı gözlemci tarafından sağ gözlerine Nidek AL-Scan, Galilei G4 Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer ve Cirrus HD-OCT (Cirrus Version 6.0) ile SKK ölçümleri yapıldı. Üç cihaz ile elde edilmiş ölçümler one way ANOVA testi kullanılarak kıyaslandı. Ayrıca 23 hastada farklı iki gözlemci tarafından aynı cihazla SKK ölçümleri yapıldı ve her bir cihaz için gözlemciler arası tekrarlanabilirlik oranı değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Ortalama SKK değerleri Nidek AL-Scan, Galilei Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer ve Cirrus HD-OCT için sırasıyla 541.04±34.91 ?m, 541.56±31.05 ?m ve 541.73±33.83 ?m bulundu. Üç cihazin ölçümleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark tespit edilmedi (p=0.98). Farklı gözlemciler tarafından aynı cihazla yapılan ölçümlerde ise intraklas korelasyon değeri her bir cihaz için 0.9 dan büyük bulundu ve cihazların Bland Altman plotlarında tutarlılık izlendi. Nidek AL-Scan, Galilei G4 Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer and Cirrus HD-OCT provide CCT measurements that are in agreement with each other and with the published values for CCT in human subjects. CCT measures from these instruments should be used interchangeably. Tartışma: Nidek AL-Scan, Galilei G4 Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer ve Cirrus HD-OCT ile ölçülen SKK değerleri istatistiksel olarak birbiriyle ve yayınlanan SKK değerleriyle tutarlı olup, klinik uygulamalarda bu üç alet SKK ölçümü bakımından birbirinin yerine kullanılabilir. Sonuç: Cihazlar SKK ölçümünde birbiri yerine kullanılabilir

🔖

Cite This Article

DERVİŞOĞULLARI, M. S., TOTAN, Y., YUVACI, İ., GÜRAĞAÇ, F. B. (2015). Nidek AL-Scan, Galilei G4 Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer ve Cirrus HD-OCT ile Yapılan Santral Kornea Kalınlığı Ölçümlerinin Karşılaştırılması. Glokom Katarakt, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 4, 287–292. https://ajindex.com/articles/204315

References (14)

  1. Holden BA, Mertz GW, McNally JJ. Corneal swelling response to con- tact lenses worn under extended wear conditions. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1983;24:218-26.
  2. Swarbrick HA, Wong G, O'Leary DJ. Corneal response to orthokeratol- ogy. Optom Vis Sci. 1998;75:791-99.
  3. Emara B, Probst LE, Tingey DP, et al. Correlation of intraocular pres- sure and central corneal thickness in normal myopic eyes and after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 1998;24:1320-25.
  4. Price FW Jr, Koller DL, Price MO. Central corneal pachymetry in patients undergoing laser in situ keratomileusis. Ophthalmology 1999;106:2216-20.
  5. Kremer FB, Dufek M. Excimer laser in situ keratomileusis. J Refract Surg 1995;11:244-7.
  6. Doughty MJ, Zaman ML. Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta-analysis approach. Surv Ophthalmol 2000;44:367-408.
  7. Whitacre MM, Stein RA, Hassanein K. The effect of corneal thickness on applanation tonometry. Am J Ophthalmol 1993;115:592-6. Herndon LW. Measuring intraocular pressure-adjustments for corneal thickness and new technologies. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2006;17:115-9. Brandt JD. Corneal thickness in glaucoma screening, diagnosis, and management. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2004;15:85-9.
  8. Rabsilber TM, Jepsen C, Auffarth GU, et al. Intraocular lens power calculation: clinical comparison of 2 optical biometry devices. J Cata- ract Refract Surg 2010;36:230-4.
  9. Ceylan OM, Turk A, Erdurman C, et al. Comparison of Oculus Pen- tacam and Stratus optical coherence tomography for measurement of central corneal thickness. Cornea 2011;30:670-4.
  10. Herndon LW, Choudhri SA, Cox T, et al. Central corneal thickness in normal, glaucomatous, and ocular hypertensive eyes. Arch Ophthalmol 1997;115:1137-41.
  11. Drexler W, Baumgartner A, Findl O, et al. Submicrometer precision biometry of the anterior segment of the human eye. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997;38:1304-13.
  12. Drexler W, Findl O, Menapace R, et al. Partial coherence interferom- etry: a novel approach to biometry in cataract surgery. Am J Ophthal- mol 1998;126:524-34.
  13. Demir S, Ortak H, Yeter V, et al. Mapping corneal thickness using dual-scheimpflug imaging at different stages of keratoconus. Cornea 2013;31:1470-4. Correa-Pérez ME, López-Miguel A, Miranda-Anta S, et al. Precision of high definition spectral-domain optical coherence tomography for measuring central corneal thickness. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012;53:1752-7.
  14. Al-Mohtaseb ZN, Wang L, Weikert MP. Repeatability and comparabil-