Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Central corneal thickness determination in corneal edema using ultrasound pachymetry, a Scheimpflug camera, and anterior segment OCT

  • Cornea
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to determine the influence of post-surgical corneal edema on the reliability and reproducibility of central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements by a Scheimpflug camera (Pentacam), ultrasound pachymetry (USP), and anterior-segment spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT).

Methods

Thirty-two patients planned for cataract surgery (n = 16) or vitrectomy (n =  6) were included in a prospective study. The non-surgery eye was used as control. Two investigators acquired two measurements each, with the Pentacam (Oculus, Germany) and the AS-OCT (Heidelberg Engineering, Germany) in a randomized order, followed by USP (Tomey SP-100, Germany). CCT was evaluated using the apex value for Pentacam, the corneal apex cut in AS–OCT and averaging eight single measurements for USP. Coefficients of variation (COV) and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were determined.

Results

Post-surgery corneas showed a thickness of (investigators 1 and 2): Pentacam (615.9 ± 58.02 μm and 615.1 ± 60.17 μm), USP (601.4 ± 63.77 μm and 614.5 ± 70.91 μm), AS-OCT (608.8 ± 65.67 μm and 606.9 ± 64.41 μm) ,with no significant difference (ANOVA p > 0.99). The COVs (investigators 1 and 2) for control eyes were: Pentacam (0.78 ± 0.52 and 0.70 ± 0.76), USP (0.66 ± 0.29 and 0.98 ± 0.44), AS-OCT (0.59 ± 0.61 and 0.59 ± 0.40). The COVs (investigators 1 and 2) for post-surgical eyes were: Pentacam (0.98 ± 1.25 and 0.97 ± 0.73), USP (0.73 ± 0.64 and 1.35 ± 0.85), AS-OCT (1.34 ± 1.57 and 1.19 ± 1.18).The ICC was determined in post-surgery corneas (ICC > 0.96) and control corneas (ICC > 0.95).

Conclusion

USP measurements have the highest user dependence. Post-surgical corneal edema leads to higher intraobserver variability. All methods reached a high level of agreement in CCT determination in edematous as well as healthy corneas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD, Heuer DK, Higginbotham EJ, Johnson CA, Keltner JL, Miller JP, Parrish RK 2nd, Wilson MR, Kass MA (2002) The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 120(6):714–720, discussion 829–730

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Huang J, Ding X, Savini G, Pan C, Feng Y, Cheng D, Hua Y, Hu X, Wang Q (2013) A Comparison between Scheimpflug imaging and optical coherence tomography in measuring corneal thickness. Ophthalmology 120(10):1951–1958. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.02.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jorge J, Rosado J, Diaz-Rey J, Gonzalez-Meijome J (2013) Central corneal thickness and anterior chamber depth measurement by Sirius((R)) Scheimpflug tomography and ultrasound. Clin Ophthalmol 7:417–422. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S35121

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Martin R, de Juan V, Rodriguez G, Cuadrado R, Fernandez I (2007) Measurement of corneal swelling variations without removal of the contact lens during extended wear. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 48(7):3043–3050. doi:10.1167/iovs.06-1372

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Martin R, de Juan V, Rodriguez G, Fonseca S, Martin S (2008) Contact lens-induced corneal peripheral swelling differences with extended wear. Cornea 27(9):976–979. doi:10.1097/ICO.0b013e318172fc2c

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Price FW Jr, Koller DL, Price MO (1999) Central corneal pachymetry in patients undergoing laser in situ keratomileusis. Ophthalmology 106(11):2216–2220. doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(99)90508-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Randleman JB, Woodward M, Lynn MJ, Stulting RD (2008) Risk assessment for ectasia after corneal refractive surgery. Ophthalmology 115(1):37–50. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.03.073

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kwon RO, Price MO, Price FW Jr, Ambrosio R Jr, Belin MW (2010) Pentacam characterization of corneas with Fuchs dystrophy treated with Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty. J Refract Surg 26(12):972–979. doi:10.3928/1081597×-20100212-08

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Miglior S, Albe E, Guareschi M, Mandelli G, Gomarasca S, Orzalesi N (2004) Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility in the evaluation of ultrasonic pachymetry measurements of central corneal thickness. Br J Ophthalmol 88(2):174–177

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nam SM, Im CY, Lee HK, Kim EK, Kim TI, Seo KY (2010) Accuracy of RTVue optical coherence tomography, Pentacam, and ultrasonic pachymetry for the measurement of central corneal thickness. Ophthalmology 117(11):2096–2103. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.03.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. de Sanctis U, Missolungi A, Mutani B, Richiardi L, Grignolo FM (2007) Reproducibility and repeatability of central corneal thickness measurement in keratoconus using the rotating Scheimpflug camera and ultrasound pachymetry. Am J Ophthalmol 144(5):712–718. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2007.07.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Huang J, Pesudovs K, Yu A, Wright T, Wen D, Li M, Yu Y, Wang Q (2011) A comprehensive comparison of central corneal thickness measurement. Optom Vis Sci 88(8):940–949. doi:10.1097/OPX.0b013e31821ffe2c

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Do JR, Oh JH, Chuck RS, Park CY (2015) Transient corneal edema is a predictive factor for pseudophakic cystoid macular edema after uncomplicated cataract surgery. Korean J Ophthalmol 29(1):14–22. doi:10.3341/kjo.2015.29.1.14

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hiraoka M, Amano S, Oshika T, Kato S, Hori S (2001) Factors contributing to corneal complications after vitrectomy in diabetic patients. Jpn J Ophthalmol 45(5):492–495

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. du Toit R, Vega JA, Fonn D, Simpson T (2003) Diurnal variation of corneal sensitivity and thickness. Cornea 22(3):205–209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Zadnik K, Mutti DO, Adams AJ (1992) The repeatability of measurement of the ocular components. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 33(7):2325–2333

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Al-Farhan HM, Al-Otaibi WM (2012) Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements using ultrasound pachymetry, ultrasound biomicroscopy, and the Artemis-2 VHF scanner in normal eyes. Clin Ophthalmol 6:1037–1043. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S32955

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Li EY, Mohamed S, Leung CK, Rao SK, Cheng AC, Cheung CY, Lam DS (2007) Agreement among 3 methods to measure corneal thickness: ultrasound pachymetry, Orbscan II, and Visante anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology 114(10):1842–1847. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.02.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Chen S, Huang J, Wen D, Chen W, Huang D, Wang Q (2012) Measurement of central corneal thickness by high-resolution Scheimpflug imaging, Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography and ultrasound pachymetry. Acta Ophthalmol 90(5):449–455. doi:10.1111/j.1755-3768.2010.01947

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Savini G, Barboni P, Carbonelli M, Hoffer KJ (2011) Repeatability of automatic measurements by a new Scheimpflug camera combined with Placido topography. J Cataract Refract Surg 37(10):1809–1816. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.04.033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Piotrowiak I, Soldanska B, Burduk M, Kaluzny BJ, Kaluzny J (2012) Measuring corneal thickness with SOCT, the Scheimpflug system, and ultrasound pachymetry. ISRN Ophthalmol 2012:869319. doi:10.5402/2012/869319

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wu W, Wang Y, Xu L (2014) 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 252(1):91–99. doi:10.1007/s00417-013-2502-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pierro L, Conforto E, Resti AG, Lattanzio R (1998) High-frequency ultrasound biomicroscopy versus ultrasound and optical pachymetry for the measurement of corneal thickness. Ophthalmologica 212(1):1–3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Marsich MW, Bullimore MA (2000) The repeatability of corneal thickness measures. Cornea 19(6):792–795

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mertz GW (1980) Overnight swelling of the living human cornea. J Am Optom Assoc 51(3):211–214

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kotecha A, Crabb DP, Spratt A, Garway-Heath DF (2009) The relationship between diurnal variations in intraocular pressure measurements and central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 50(9):4229–4236. doi:10.1167/iovs.08-2955

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wheeler NC, Morantes CM, Kristensen RM, Pettit TH, Lee DA (1992) Reliability coefficients of three corneal pachymeters. Am J Ophthalmol 113(6):645–651

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Iester M, Telani S, Frezzotti P, Manni G, Uva M, Figus M, Perdicchi A (2012) Differences in central corneal thickness between the paired eyes and the severity of the glaucomatous damage. Eye (Lond) 26(11):1424–1430. doi:10.1038/eye.2012.179

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany

    David Kuerten, Niklas Plange, Eva Charlotte Koch, Antonis Koutsonas, Peter Walter & Matthias Fuest

Authors
  1. David Kuerten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Niklas Plange
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eva Charlotte Koch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Antonis Koutsonas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter Walter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Matthias Fuest
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Kuerten.

Additional information

All authors certify that they have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kuerten, D., Plange, N., Koch, E.C. et al. Central corneal thickness determination in corneal edema using ultrasound pachymetry, a Scheimpflug camera, and anterior segment OCT. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 253, 1105–1109 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-015-2998-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-015-2998-y

Key words

Search

Navigation