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
. 2012 Sep 2:2012:869319.
doi: 10.5402/2012/869319. eCollection 2012.

Measuring Corneal Thickness with SOCT, the Scheimpflug System, and Ultrasound Pachymetry

Ilona Piotrowiak  1 , Beata Soldanska  1 , Mateusz Burduk  1 , Bartlomiej J Kaluzny  1 , Jozef Kaluzny  1
Affiliations

Measuring Corneal Thickness with SOCT, the Scheimpflug System, and Ultrasound Pachymetry

Ilona Piotrowiak et al. ISRN Ophthalmol. .

Abstract

Background and Objective. Evaluation of agreement, repeatability, and reproducibility of central and minimal corneal thickness (CCT and MCT) measurements obtained by SOCT, the Scheimpflug system, and ultrasound pachymetry. Materials and Methods. 28 eyes of healthy patients were enrolled. Pachymetry measurements were performed with SOCT, the Scheimpflug system, and ultrasound instrument. Each measurement was taken by 3 operators on 3 devices providing a total of 2100 measurements. Results. The mean CCT for SOCT, Scheimpflug system, and ultrasound instrument was 537.92, 545.94, and 555.74 μm, respectively, (P < .001). The respective mean coefficients of repeatability for CCT were 0.61, 0.82 and 0.80, whereas mean coefficients of interoperator reproducibility for CCT were 0.91, 1.11, and 1.25. Conclusions. CCT and MCT measurements show moderate agreement between instruments. The repeatability and interoperator reproducibility of the results obtained by SOCT are somewhat higher. The operator's impact on CCT and MCT measurements is insignificant in all devices.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Mean CCT and MCT values obtained with 3 different devices.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Mean CCT and MCT obtained with different instruments and operators.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Al-Mezaine HS, Al-Amro SA, Kangave D, Sadaawy A, Wehaib TA, Al-Obeidan S. Comparison between central corneal thickness measurements by oculus pentacam and ultrasonic pachymetry. International Ophthalmology. 2008;28(5):333–338. - PubMed
    1. Taylor JR. An Introduction to Error Analysis: The Study of Uncertainties in Physical Measurements. Sausalito, Calif, USA: University Science Books; 1999.
    1. Shaheeda M, Lee GKY, Rao SK, et al. Repeatability and reproducibility of pachymetric mapping with Visante Anterior Segment-Optical Coherence Tomography. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2007;48(12):5499–5504. - PubMed
    1. Doughty MJ, Zaman ML. Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: A review and meta-analysis approach. Survey of Ophthalmology. 2000;44(5):367–408. - PubMed
    1. Medeiros FA, Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Corneal thickness measurements and visual function abnormalities in ocular hypertensive patients. American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2003;135(2):131–137. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources