Journal of Current Glaucoma Practice

Register      Login

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 1 ( January-April, 2021 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Comparison of Central Corneal Thickness Measurements by Contact and Non-contact Pachymetry Devices

Huseyin Mayali, Muhammed Altinisik, Ismail Diri, Sami Ilker, Emin Kurt, Ozcan Kayikcioglu

Citation Information : Mayali H, Altinisik M, Diri I, Ilker S, Kurt E, Kayikcioglu O. Comparison of Central Corneal Thickness Measurements by Contact and Non-contact Pachymetry Devices. J Curr Glaucoma Pract 2021; 15 (1):28-31.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10078-1295

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 21-07-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Aim and objective: To compare central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements obtained by handheld contact ultrasound pachymetry (HCUP) and non-contact pachymetry devices. Materials and methods: Ninety eyes of 90 patients (52 male and 38 female) were included in the study. Measurements from two non-contact devices, —specular microscopy (SM, Konan Medical, CA, USA) and Oculus Pentacam (Oculus Inc., Germany)—were compared against HCUP (Pachmate 2, DGH Technology, Inc, PA, USA). Ultrasound measurements were obtained 3 times by the same user and averaged. The differences were calculated by one-way ANOVA. Agreement between measurements were assessed by Bland–Altman plots and intraclass correlation coefficient tests. Coefficient of repeatability (%, CR) was defined as 1.96*standard deviations of the differences between pairs of measurements divided by the average of the means. Results: The mean age was 34.31 ± 14.39 (14–74) years, and the mean intraocular pressure was 16.48 ± 2.63 mm Hg (12–21). Mean CCT measured by HCUP, SM, and Pentacam was 557.76 ± 36.76 μm, 550.29 ± 43.74 μm, and 541.41 ± 35.7 μm, respectively (p < 0.05). In the Bland–Altman plot, 95% limit of agreements were 19.5 and 14.18 μm among HCUP measurements, 34.55 μm between HCUP and Pentacam, 41.49 μm between SM and Pentacam, and 46.98 μm between HCUP and SM. CR values (%) were 3.49, 2.54, 6.28, 7.68, and 8.47, respectively. Conclusion: There were significant differences between the mean CCT values of the measurement devices. Clinical significance: Contact and non-contact devices may not interchangeable in the clinical assessment of CCT.

  1. Pflugfelder SC, Liu Z, Feuer W. Corneal thickness indices discriminate between keratoconus and contact lens-induced corneal thinning. Ophthalmology 2002;109(12):2336–2341. DOI: 10.1016/s0161-6420(02)01276-9.
  2. Holden BA, Mertz GW, McNally JJ. Corneal swelling response to contact lenses worn under extended wear conditions. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1983;24(2):218–226.
  3. Academy of Ophthalmology. Excimer laser photorefractivekeratectomy (PRK) for myopia and astigmatism. Ophthalmic procedure preliminary assessment. Ophthalmology 1999;106(2):422–437. DOI: 10.1016/S0161-6420(99)90085-4.
  4. Price FW, Koller DL, Price MO. Central corneal pachymetry in patients undergoing laser in situ keratomileusis. Ophthalmology 1999;106(11):2216–2220. DOI: 10.1016/S0161-6420(99)90508-0.
  5. Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD. The ocular hypertension treatment study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120(6):714–720. DOI: 10.1001/archopht.120.6.714.
  6. Doughty MJ, Zaman ML. Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta-analysis approach. Surv Ophthalmol 2000;44(5):367–408. DOI: 10.1016/s0039-6257(00)00110-7.
  7. Bourges JL, Alfonsi N, Laliberté JF, et al. Average 3-dimensional models for the comparison of Orbscan II and pentacam pachymetry maps in normal corneas. Ophthalmology 2009;116(11):2064–2071. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.04.036.
  8. Al-Farhan HM, Al-Otaibi WM. Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements using ultrasound pachymetry, ultrasound biomicroscopy, and the Artemis-2 VHF scanner in normal eyes. Clin Ophthalmol 2012;6:1037–1043. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S32955.
  9. Williams R, Fink BA, King-Smith PE, et al. Central corneal thickness measurements: using an ultrasonic instrument and 4 optical instruments. Cornea 2011;30(11):1238–1243. DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e3182152051.
  10. Javaloy J, Vidal MT, Villada JR, et al. Comparison of four corneal pachymetry techniques in corneal refractive surgery. J Refract Surg 2004;20(1):29–34. DOI: 10.3928/1081-597X-20040101-06.
  11. Sallet G. Comparison of optical and ultrasound central corneal pachymetry. Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol 2001;281(281):35–38.
  12. Ehlers N, Bramsen T, Sperling S. Applanation tonometry and central corneal thickness. Acta Ophthalmol 1975;53(1):34–43. DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.1975.tb01135.x.
  13. Suzuki S, Oshika T, Oki K. Corneal thickness measurements: scanning slit-corneal topography and non-contact specular microscopy versus ultrasonic pachymetry. J Cataract Refr Surg 2003;29(7):1313–1318. DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(03)00123-8.
  14. Bovelle R, Kaufman SC, Thompson HW, et al. Corneal thickness measurements with the Topcon SP-2000P specular microscope and an ultrasound pachymeter. Arch Ophthalmol 1999;117(7):868–870. DOI: 10.1001/archopht.117.7.868.
  15. Lackner B, Schmidinger G, Pieh S, et al. Repeatability and reproducibility of central corneal thickness measurement with pentacam, orbscan, and ultrasound. Optom Vis Sci 2005;82(10):892–899. DOI: 10.1097/01.opx.0000180817.46312.0a.
  16. O'Donnell C, Maldonado-Codina C. Agreement and repeatability of central thickness measurement in normal corneas using ultrasound pachymetry and the OCULUS pentacam. Cornea 2005;24(8):920–924. DOI: 10.1097/01.ico.0000157422.01146.e9.
  17. Desmond T, Arthur P, Watt K. Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by ultrasound pachymetry and 2 new devices, Tonoref III and RS-3000. Int Ophthalmol 2019;39(4):917–923. DOI: 10.1007/s10792-018-0895-1.
  18. Wells M, Wu N, Kokkinakis J, et al. Correlation of central corneal thickness measurements using Topcon TRK-1P, Zeiss Visante AS-OCT and DGH Pachmate 55 handheld ultrasonic pachymeter. Clin Exp Optom 2013;96(4):385–387. DOI: 10.1111/cxo.12013.
  19. Marsich MW, Bullimore MA. The repeatability of corneal thickness measures. Cornea 2000;19(6):792–795. DOI: 10.1097/00003226-200011000-00007.
  20. Yaylalı V, Kaufman SC, Thompson HW. Corneal thickness measurements with the orbscan topography system and ultrasonic pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg 1997;23(9):1345–1350. DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(97)80113-7.
  21. Al-Mezaine HS, Al-Amro SA, Kangave D, et al. Comparison between central corneal thickness measurements by oculus pentacam and ultrasonic pachymetry. Int Ophthalmol 2008;28(5):333–338. DOI: 10.1007/s10792-007-9143-9.
  22. Fujioka M, Nakamura M, Tatsumi Y. Comparison of pentacam scheimpflug camera with ultrasound pachymetry and noncontact specular microscopy in measuring central corneal thickness. Curr Eye Res 2007;32(2):89–94. DOI: 10.1080/02713680601115010.
  23. Nissen J, Hjortdal J, Ehlers N. A clinical comparison of optical and ultrasonic pachometry. Acta Ophthalmol 1991;69(5):659–663. DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.1991.tb04857.x.
  24. Li EY, Mohamed S, Leung CK. Agreement among 3 methods to measure corneal thickness: ultrasound pachymetry, orbscan II, and Visante anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology 2007;114(10):1842–1847. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.02.017.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.