SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Glokom Katarakt / 2019 / Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 2

The Comparison of Central Cornea Thickness in Primary Open Angle Glaucoma with Optical Biometry and Ultrasonic Pachymetry

Primer Açık Açılı Glokomda Santral Kornea Kalınlığının Optik Biyometri ve Ultrasonik Pakimetri ile Karşılaştırılması

Özkan KOCAMIŞ
Medine GÜNDOĞAN
Pages
82–86
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

Statistically signifi cant lower measurements were found with theoptic biometric pachymetry device than with USP (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: We aimed to compare central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements in eyes with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) with opticalbiometry ( Haag-Streit Lenstar LS 900 Optical Biometer,Switzerland) and ultrasonic pachymetry (USP) devices.Materials and Methods: We included 35 eyes of 35 patients with POAG in this prospective observational study.
📊
Key Findings & Data:CCT was measured withthe optic biometric pachymetry and an USP device (Pac-Scan 300p, Sonomed Escalon, NY, USA).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Statistically signifi cant lower measurements were found with theoptic biometric pachymetry device than with USP (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Purpose: We aimed to compare central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements in eyes with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) with opticalbiometry ( Haag-Streit Lenstar LS 900 Optical Biometer,Switzerland) and ultrasonic pachymetry (USP) devices.Materials and Methods: We included 35 eyes of 35 patients with POAG in this prospective observational study. CCT was measured withthe optic biometric pachymetry and an USP device (Pac-Scan 300p, Sonomed Escalon, NY, USA). While the fi rst observer conducted themeasurement with both the optic biometric pachymetry and USP devices, the second observer only used the optic biometric pachymetry device.Spearman correlation analysis was used in the correlation analysis.Results: Central corneal thickness with the optic biometric pachymetry was 526.6±39.6 μm for the fi rst observer and 527.7±40.6 μm for thesecond observer. The central corneal thickness was 541.9±43.6 μm with USP. Statistically signifi cant lower measurements were found with theoptic biometric pachymetry device than with USP (p

Özet

Amaç: Primer açık açılı glokomlu (PAAG) gözlerde santral kornea kalınlık (SKK) ölçümlerini optik biyometri (Haag-Streit Lenstar LS 900 Optical Biometer, Switzerland) ve ultrasonik pakimetri (USP) cihazlarıyla karşılaştırmayı amaçladık. Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu prospektif, gözlemsel çalışmaya 35 PAAG’lı hastanın 35 gözü dahil edildi. SKK optik biyometrik pakimetri ve USP-(Pac- Scan 300p, Sonomed Escalon, NY,USA) cihazlarıyla ölçüldü. Birinci gözlemci hem optik biyometrik pakimetri hem de USP cihazı ile ölçüm yaparken ikinci gözlemci sadece optik biyometrik pakimetri cihazını kullandı. Korelasyon analizinde Spearman korelasyon analizi kullanıldı. Bulgular: Optik biyometrik pakimetri ile santral kornea kalınlıkları birinci gözlemci için 526.6±39.6 μm, ikinci gözlemci için 527.7±40.6- μm olarak ölçüldü. USP ile santral kornea kalınlık ölçümü 541.9±43.6-μm idi. Optik biyometrik pakimetri cihazı ile USP karşılaştırıldığında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı düşük ölçümler bulundu (p

🔖

Cite This Article

KOCAMIŞ, Ö., GÜNDOĞAN, M. (2022). The Comparison of Central Cornea Thickness in Primary Open Angle Glaucoma with Optical Biometry and Ultrasonic Pachymetry. Glokom Katarakt, Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 2, 82–86. https://ajindex.com/articles/525777

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Marsich MW, Bullimore MA. The repeatability of corneal thickness measures. Cornea 2000;19:792–5
  2. Shih CY, Graff Zivin JS, Trokel SL, et al. Clinical signifi cance of central corneal thickness in the management of glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2004;122:1270–5
  3. Herndon L, Weizer J, Stinnett S Central corneal thickness as a risk factor for advanced glaucoma damage. Arch Ophthalmol 2004;122:17–21
  4. Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: Baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120(6):714–20
  5. Lopez-Miguel A, Correa-Perez ME, Miranda-Anta S et al. Comparison of central corneal thickness using optical lowcoherence refl ectometry and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg 2012;38:758–64
  6. Koktekir BE, Gedik S, Bakbak B. Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements with optical low-coherence refl ectometry and ultrasound pachymetry and reproducibility of both devices. Cornea. 2012;31:1278–81
  7. Gonul S, Koktekir BE, Bakbak B et al. Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements using optical low coherence refl ectometry, Fourier domain optical coherence tomography, and Scheimpfl ug camera. Arq Bras Oftalmol 2014; 77(6):345-50
  8. Byeloš Roncević MB, Bušic M, Čima I et al. Intraobserver and interobserver repeatability of ocular components measurement in cataract eyes using a new optical coherence refl ectometer. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2011;249:83–7
  9. Beutelspacher SC, Serbecic N, Scheuerle AF. Measurement of the central corneal thickness using Optical refl ectometry and ultrasound. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2011;228:815–8
  10. Beutelspacher SC, Serbecic N, Scheuerle AF. Assessment of central corneal thickness using OCT, ultrasound, optical low-coherence refl ectometry and Scheimpfl ug pachymetry. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2011;21:132–7
  11. Khaja WA, Grover S, Kelmenson AT et al. Comparison of central corneal thickness: ultrasound pachymetry versus slit lamp optical coherence tomography, specular microscopy, and Orbscan. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015;9:1065–70
  12. Sadoughi MM, Einollahi B, Einollahi N et al. Measurement of central corneal thickness using ultrasound pachymetry and Orbscan II in normal eyes. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2015;10:4–9
  13. Sedaghat MR, Daneshvar R, Kargozar A et al. Comparison of central corneal thickness measurement using ultrasonic pachymetry, rotating Scheimpfl ug camera, and scanning-slit topog