Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2003 Jun;29(6):1179-84.
doi: 10.1016/s0886-3350(02)01921-1.

Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by specular microscopy, ultrasound pachymetry, and ultrasound biomicroscopy

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by specular microscopy, ultrasound pachymetry, and ultrasound biomicroscopy

Eric S Tam et al. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003 Jun.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the reproducibility and mean values of central corneal thickness (CCT) obtained by specular microscopy, ultrasound pachymetry, and ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM).

Setting: Department of Ophthalmology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Methods: Thirty-one healthy volunteers were recruited for a sample size of 62 eyes. All subjects had pachymetric measurements by specular microscopy, ultrasound pachymetry, and UBM. Three separate measurements meeting criteria for centrality and perpendicularity were recorded for each eye.

Results: The mean CCT by specular microscopy was 572 microm (95% confidence interval (CI), 566-578 microm), which was significantly greater than 550 microm (95% CI, 545-556 microm) (P<.001) and 555 microm (95% CI, 550-560 microm) (P<.001) by ultrasound pachymetry and UBM, respectively. The mean standard deviation (SD) of repeated measurements by specular microscopy was 7.82 microm, which was significantly greater than the mean SDs of 4.14 microm (P<.001) and 3.90 microm (P<.001) by ultrasound pachymetry and UBM, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the mean SDs by ultrasound pachymetry and UBM (P=.156).

Conclusions: Although the CCT measurements by specular microscopy were significantly less reproducible than those by ultrasound pachymetry and UBM, the error levels were clinically acceptable. Both ultrasound pachymetry and UBM produced similar CCT measurements, which were significantly less than those generated by specular microscopy. One should be aware of the advantages and limitations of each machine and of possible differences in the CCT measurements by optical and ultrasound pachymetry.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources