Corneal thickness measurements in normal and keratoconic eyes: Pentacam comprehensive eye scanner versus noncontact specular microscopy and ultrasound pachymetry

PURPOSE: To compare central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements taken with the Pentacam comprehensive eye scanner (CES), noncontact specular microscopy (SM), and ultrasound pachymetry (UP) in normal and keratoconic corneas. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey. METHODS: In a prospective study, 3 CCT measurements were taken with the Pentacam CES, SM, and UP in that sequence from 1 eye of 45 consecutive patients with myopia (group A) and 62 consecutive patients with keratoconus (group B). Eyes with keratoconus were further divided into 3 subgroups, mild, moderate, and severe, according to the mean keratometry readings. RESULTS: Pentacam CES (r = 0.994) and UP (r = 0.993) demonstrated very high and comparable reproducibility in group A. In group B, Pentacam CES displayed better reproducibility (r = 0.988) than UP (r = 0.969) and SM (r = 0.901). The mean CCT measurements of Pentacam CES and UP were not significantly different in group A (P = .37) and in eyes with mild keratoconus (P = .29), whereas significant differences between all instrument pairs were evident in group B and in moderate and severely keratoconic eyes (P<.05). Noncontact SM measurements were significantly smaller than those of Pentacam CES and UP in all groups (P<.05) when a measurement could be obtained. There were significant linear correlations between CCT measurements of Pentacam CES, UP, and noncontact SM in groups A, B, and mildly keratoconic eyes (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that whereas Pentacam CES and UP may be used interchangeably in normal eyes in the clinical setting for the measurement of CCT, one should be cautious interpreting corneal thickness data from Pentacam CES, UP, and particularly SM in eyes with keratoconus. Whereas, in normal and mildly keratoconic eyes, Pentacam CES and UP demonstrated very high and comparable reproducibility, in moderately keratoconic eyes, Pentacam CES readings showed better reproducibility than UP.

[1]  Matthew M. Marsich,et al.  The Repeatability of Corneal Thickness Measures , 2000, Cornea.

[2]  J. González-Méijome,et al.  Central and peripheral corneal thickness measurement with Orbscan II and topographical ultrasound pachymetry , 2003, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[3]  A. Iwase,et al.  Corneal thickness measurements: Scanning‐slit corneal topography and noncontact specular microscopy versus ultrasonic pachymetry , 2003, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[4]  S P Azen,et al.  Evaluation and comparison of sources of variability in the measurement of corneal thickness with ultrasonic and optical pachymeters. , 1983, Ophthalmic surgery.

[5]  D. Rootman,et al.  Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by specular microscopy, ultrasound pachymetry, and ultrasound biomicroscopy , 2003, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[6]  S. Kaufman,et al.  Corneal thickness measurements with the Topcon SP-2000P specular microscope and an ultrasound pachymeter. , 1999, Archives of ophthalmology.

[7]  H W Thompson,et al.  Corneal thickness measurements with the Orbscan Topography System and ultrasonic pachymetry , 1997, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[8]  J. Alió,et al.  Comparison of four corneal pachymetry technique;s in corneal refractive surgery. , 2004, Journal of refractive surgery.

[9]  J. Alió,et al.  Comparison of corneal pachymetry using ultrasound and Orbscan II , 2002, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[10]  W M Petroll,et al.  Epithelial and corneal thickness measurements by in vivo confocal microscopy through focusing (CMTF). , 1997, Current eye research.

[11]  A. Gordon,et al.  Variability of Ultrasonic Pachometry , 1990, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[12]  C. Skorpik,et al.  Altered Organization of Collagen in the Apex of Keratoconus Corneas , 1998, Ophthalmic Research.

[13]  G. Alessio,et al.  Accuracy of Orbscan optical pachymetry in corneas with haze , 2002, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[14]  T. Avitabile,et al.  Evaluation of central and peripheral corneal thickness with ultrasound biomicroscopy in normal and keratoconic eyes. , 1997, Cornea.

[15]  B. Seitz,et al.  Corneal thickness measurements with contact and noncontact specular microscopic and ultrasonic pachymetry. , 2001, American journal of ophthalmology.

[16]  A. Neubauer,et al.  Central Corneal Thickness Measurement with a Retinal Optical Coherence Tomography Device Versus Standard Ultrasonic Pachymetry , 2001, Cornea.

[17]  L. Schmetterer,et al.  Central corneal thickness measurements with partial coherence interferometry, ultrasound, and the Orbscan system. , 2004, Ophthalmology.

[18]  C K Hitzenberger,et al.  Interferometric measurement of corneal thickness with micrometer precision. , 1994, American journal of ophthalmology.

[19]  J. Krachmer,et al.  Anterior clear spaces in keratoconus. , 1986, Ophthalmology.

[20]  S. Tuft,et al.  A histochemical and x-ray diffraction study of keratoconus epikeratoplasty. Report of two cases. , 1996, Cornea.

[21]  B. Edmunds,et al.  Central corneal thickness: will one measurement suffice? , 2005, Ophthalmology.

[22]  Jørgen Nissen,et al.  A clinical comparison of optical and ultrasonic pachometry , 1991, Acta ophthalmologica.

[23]  B. Seitz,et al.  Scanning-slit and Specular Microscopic Pachymetry in Comparison With Ultrasonic Determination of Corneal Thickness , 2001, Cornea.

[24]  S. Hosking,et al.  Corneal pachymetry in normal and keratoconic eyes: Orbscan II versus ultrasound , 2004, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.