Measuring the cornea: the latest developments in corneal topography

Purpose of review Corneal measurement uses Placido-disc topographers and tomographers, creating three-dimensional corneal models from cross-sectional images. Technology includes slit scanning, Scheimpflug imaging, very high frequency ultrasound, and high-speed anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Recent findings Normative data in the Asian population using the Orbscan, and repeatability information for the 3 and 5-mm zone were reported. Best fit sphere and the thinnest point were not significantly different, but posterior surface elevation was higher using the Orbscan in keratoconic eyes. Pachymetry data from the Pentacam show pattern differences used as keratoconus indices. Scheimpflug imaging identified changes in the posterior surface that were not mirrored by the anterior surface with aging, and may be better for surgical planning than conventional keratometry following excimer treatments. Optical coherence tomography mean central corneal thickness measurements were repeatable; however, mean central epithelial thickness measurements were not. Very high frequency ultrasound can be used successfully to create epithelial and flap thickness maps. Studies reveal specular microscopy measures thinner and less reliable readings than Pentacam and Orbscan. Summary New corneal topographers, such as Scheimpflug imaging, ultrasound and optical coherence tomography have expanded capabilities and precision in measuring the structure of the cornea.

[1]  R. Silverman,et al.  Evaluating microkeratome efficacy by 3D corneal lamellar flap thickness accuracy and reproducibility using Artemis VHF digital ultrasound arc-scanning. , 2006, Journal of refractive surgery.

[2]  K. Goins,et al.  Comparison of Pentacam and Orbscan IIz on posterior curvature topography measurements in keratoconus eyes. , 2006, Ophthalmology.

[3]  David Huang,et al.  Optical coherence tomography to assess intrastromal corneal ring segment depth in keratoconic eyes , 2006, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[4]  F. Martı́nez-Soriano,et al.  Quantitative Anatomical Differences in Central Corneal Thickness Values Determined With Scanning-Slit Corneal Topography and Noncontact Specular Microscopy , 2006, Cornea.

[5]  T. Simpson,et al.  The Repeatability of Corneal and Corneal Epithelial Thickness Measurements Using Optical Coherence Tomography , 2006, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[6]  Barry YM Yeung,et al.  Comparison between central corneal thickness measurements by ultrasound pachymetry and optical coherence tomography , 2006, Clinical & experimental ophthalmology.

[7]  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.

[8]  Allan Luz,et al.  Corneal‐thickness spatial profile and corneal‐volume distribution: Tomographic indices to detect keratoconus , 2006, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[9]  M. Belin,et al.  Changes in the posterior cornea after laser in situ keratomileusis and photorefractive keratectomy , 2006, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[10]  D. Piñero,et al.  Repeatability and reproducibility of posterior corneal curvature measurements by combined scanning-slit and placido-disc topography after LASIK. , 2006, Ophthalmology.

[11]  C. McGhee,et al.  Orbscan computerized topography: Attributes, applications, and limitations , 2005, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[12]  S. Wilson Cautions regarding measurements of the posterior corneal curvature. , 2000, Ophthalmology.

[13]  Yan Li,et al.  Corneal pachymetry mapping with high-speed optical coherence tomography. , 2006, Ophthalmology.

[14]  M. Dubbelman,et al.  The shape of the anterior and posterior surface of the aging human cornea , 2006, Vision Research.

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

[16]  H. Fam,et al.  Relationship between the corneal surface and the anterior segment of the cornea: An Asian perspective , 2006, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[17]  D. Reinstein,et al.  Artemis very high-frequency digital ultrasound-guided repositioning of a free cap after laser in situ keratomileusis. , 2006, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[18]  S. Trokel,et al.  Evaluating central corneal thickness measurements with noncontact optical low-coherence reflectometry and contact ultrasound pachymetry. , 2006, American journal of ophthalmology.

[19]  Ö. Uçakhan,et al.  Corneal thickness measurements in normal and keratoconic eyes: Pentacam comprehensive eye scanner versus noncontact specular microscopy and ultrasound pachymetry , 2006, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[20]  E. Borasio,et al.  Estimation of true corneal power after keratorefractive surgery in eyes requiring cataract surgery: BESSt formula , 2006, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.