Journals / MN Oftalmoloji / 2019 / Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 1

Corneal Thickness Analysis with Different Methods in Keratokonus

Keratokonusta Farklı Yöntemlerle Korneal Kalınlık Analizi

Pages
1–4
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)

In the keratoconus central corneal thickness measurements, the margin of error of the devices used must be considered.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To compare central corneal thickness measurements taken with the T-Cone topography, Pentacam HR, and ultrasound pachym- etry in keratoconus.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Method: This prospective study included a total of 44 eyes of 44 consecutive patients with keratoconus.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In the keratoconus central corneal thickness measurements, the margin of error of the devices used must be considered.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: To compare central corneal thickness measurements taken with the T-Cone topography, Pentacam HR, and ultrasound pachym- etry in keratoconus. Material and Method: This prospective study included a total of 44 eyes of 44 consecutive patients with keratoconus. Mean central corneal thickness measurements were compared between the Pentacam HR, T-Cone, and ultrasound pachymetry. The patients were classified according to the keratoconus staging system of ABC in Pentacam HR’s software. Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess the reliability of the different measurement methods. Results: The mean age of the patients was 18.06 ± 4.52 years (range:5-27 years). No statistically significant difference was found between central corneal thickness measurements performed with Pentacam HR, T-Cone and ultrasound pachymetry (p=0.443). The mean central corneal thickness value measured with the T-Cone was 7.0 μm thicker than ultrasound pachymetry. The mean central corneal thickness value measured with the Pentacam HR was 10.20 μm thicker than ultrasound pachymetry. Conclusion: In our study, it was seen that central corneal thickness values obtained with three different methods were similar. However, as the corneal posterior surface keratometric measurements increased, the reliability of the methods decreased. In the keratoconus central corneal thickness measurements, the margin of error of the devices used must be considered.

Özet

Amaç: Keratokonusta santral kornea kalınlığı ölçümlerinin T-Cone topografi, Pentacam HR ve ultrason pakimetre ile karşılaştırılması. Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu prospektif çalışmaya keratokonus tanılı 44 hastanın 44 gözü dahil edildi. Pentacam HR, T-Cone ve ultrason pakimet- reden elde edilen ortalama santral kornea kalınlığı ölçümleri karşılaştırıldı. Hastalar Pentacam HR yazılımında yer alan ABC keratokonus sis- temine göre sınıflandırıldı. Farklı ölçüm yöntemlerinin güvenilirliğini değerlendirmek için Bland-Altman analizi kullanıldı. Bulgular: Hastaların yaş ortalaması 18,06 ± 4,52 yıl (5-27) idi. Pentacam HR, T-Cone ve ultrason pakimetre ile yapılan santral kornea ka- lınlığı ölçümleri arasında istatiksel anlamlı farklılık saptanmadı (p=0,443). T-Cone ile ölçülen ortalama santral kornea kalınlığı değeri ultra- son pakimetreye göre 7.0 μm daha kalındı. Pentacam HR ile ölçülen santral kornea kalınlığı değeri ultrason pakimetreye göre 10.20 μm daha kalın olarak saptandı. Sonuç: Çalışmamızda üç farklı yöntemle elde edilen santral kornea kalınlığı değerlerinde benzerlik olduğu görüldü. Ancak özellikle korne- al arka yüzey keratometrik ölçüm değerleri arttıkça yöntemler arasındaki korelasyonun azaldığı saptanmıştır. Keratokonusta santral kornea ka- lınlığı ölçümlerinde, kullanılan cihazların hata payları göz önünde bulundurulmalıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

SAĞLIK, A. (2019). Corneal Thickness Analysis with Different Methods in Keratokonus. MN Oftalmoloji, Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 1, 1–4. https://ajindex.com/articles/295355

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Piñero DP, Nieto JC, Lopez-Miguel A. Characterization of corneal structure in keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg 2012;38(12): 2167-83.
  2. Huang J, Savini G, Hu L, et al. Precision of a new Scheimpflug and Placido-disk analyzer in measuring corneal thickness and agreement with ultrasound pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg 2013;39(2):219-24.
  3. Mandell RB, Polse KA. Keratoconus: spatial variation of corneal thickness as a diagnostic test. Arch Ophthalmol 1969;82(2):182- 8. Gherghel D, Hosking S, Mantry S, Banerjee S, Naroo SA, Shah S. Corneal pachymetry in normal and keratoconic eyes: Orbscan II versus ultrasound. J Cataract Refract Surg 2004;30(6):1272-7.
  4. Maresca N, Zeri F, Palumbo P, Calossi A. Agreement and reliabil- ity in measuring central corneal thickness with a rotating Scheimpflug-Placido system and ultrasound pachymetry. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2014;37(6):442-6. Rabinowitz YS. Keratoconus. Surv Ophthalmol 1998;42(4):297- 319. Teberik K, Eski MT, Kaya M, Ankaralı H. Comparison of central corneal thickness with four different optical devices. Int ophthal- mol 2017;1-7. Martínez-Abad A, Piñero DP. New perspectives on the detection and progression of keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg 2017;43 (9):1213- 27. Belin MW, Duncan J. Keratoconus: the ABC grading system. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 2016;233(6):701-7. Frueh BE. Lenstar LS 900 T-Cone Topography Add-On-first clin- ical assessment. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2014;55:2551. Bland JM, Altman D. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;327: 307-10.
  5. SK Erdur, G Demirci, F Dikkaya, Kocabora MS, Ozsutcu M. Comparison of central corneal thickness with ultrasound pachym- etry, noncontact specular microscopy and spectral domain optical coherence tomography. Semin Ophthalmol 2018;6:1-6.
  6. Uçakhan ÖÖ, Özkan M, Kanpolat A. Corneal thickness measure- ments in normal and keratoconic eyes: Pentacam comprehensive eye scanner versus noncontact specular microscopy and ultra- sound pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006;32(6):970-7.
  7. Tam ES, Rootman DS. Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by specular microscopy, ultrasound pachymetry, and ultrasound biomicroscopy. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29(6):1179-84.
  8. Wu W, Wang Y, Xu L. Meta-analysis of Pentacam vs. ultrasound pachymetry in central corneal thickness measurement in normal, post-LASIK or PRK, and keratoconic or keratoconus-suspect eyes. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2014;252(1):91-9. Barkana