Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

EVALUATION OF CORNEAL THICKNESS USING TWO DIFFERENT NON-CONTACT DEVICES IN ADULT EYES.

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Upcoming SlideShare
000304 ascrs poster_032907
000304 ascrs poster_032907
Loading in …3
×

Check these out next

1 of 7 Ad
Advertisement

More Related Content

Slideshows for you (20)

Similar to EVALUATION OF CORNEAL THICKNESS USING TWO DIFFERENT NON-CONTACT DEVICES IN ADULT EYES. (20)

Advertisement

Recently uploaded (20)

Advertisement

EVALUATION OF CORNEAL THICKNESS USING TWO DIFFERENT NON-CONTACT DEVICES IN ADULT EYES.

  1. 1. The authors have no financial interestThe authors have no financial interest Blanco Torcal B; Sánchez-Pina, JMª; Lorente Hevia P; Villar Arrondo E; Carrillo Ramos V; García-Pérez J; Álvarez-Rementería Capelo L.
  2. 2. INTRODUCTION  Ultrasound pachymetry (US) is the gold standard to measure central corneal thickness (CCT)  limitations : 1-3  Reproducibility ,  Contact instrument ,  Mild patient discomfort, …  Studies comparing CCT between US and noncontact devices : 4-10  low-coherence reflectometry  optical coherence tomography (OCT)  scanning-slit topography/ pachymetry  noncontact specular microscope  rotating Scheimpflug camera.(Pentacam, Galilei, Sirius)… 1.Gordon A, Boggess EA, Molinari JF (1990) Variability of ultrasonic pachometry. Optom Vis Sci; 67:162-165. 2.Miglior S, Albe E, Guareschi M, et al. Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility in the evaluation of ultrasonic pachymetry measurements of central corneal thickness. Br J Ophthalmol 2004; 88:174–177 3.Marsich MM, Bullimore MA. The repeatability of corneal thickness measures. Cornea 2000; 19:792–795 4.Barkana Y, Gerber Y, Elbaz U, Schwartz S, Ken-Dror G, Avni I, Zadok D (2006) Central corneal thickness measurement with the Pentacam Scheimpflug system, optical low-coherence reflectometry pachymeter, and ultrasound pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg; 31:1729-1735. 5. Bechmann M, Thiel MJ, Neubauer AS, et al. Central corneal thickness measurement with a retinal optical coherence tomography device versus standard ultrasonic pachymetry. Cornea 2001; 20: 50–54 6. Chakrabarti HS, Craig JP, Brahma A, et al. Comparison of corneal thickness measurements using ultrasound and Orbscan slit-scanning topography in normal and post-LASIK eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001; 27:1823–1828 7.Suzuki S, Oshika T, Oki K, Sakabe I, Iwase A, Amano S, Araie M (2003) Corneal thickness measurements: scanning-slit corneal topography and noncontact specular microscopy versus ultrasonic pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg; 29:1313-1318. 8. Barkana Y, et al. Central corneal thickness measurement with the Pentacam Scheimpflug system, optical low-coherence reflectometry pachymeter, and ultrasound pachymetry J Cataract Refract Surg 2005; 31:1729–1735 9. Huang J et al; Precision of a new Scheimpflug and Placido-disk analyzer in measuring corneal thickness and agreement with ultrasound pachymetry; J Cataract Refract Surg 2013; 39:219–224. 10. Faramarzi A et al; Central corneal thickness measurements after myopic photorefractive keratectomy using Scheimpflug imaging, scanning-slit topography, and ultrasonic pachymetry; J Cataract Refract Surg 2010; 36:1543–1549 But to our knowledge, this is the first study to compare OCULUS-Pentacam® CCT measurements with the NIDEK CEM-530 Specular microscope.
  3. 3. PURPOSE To compare central corneal thickness in cataratous adult eyes measured with OCULUS-Pentacam® and with the NIDEK CEM-530 Specular microscope.
  4. 4. METHODS  Prospective, observational and cross-sectional study.  CCT was measured in 84 right eyes of 84 consecutive patients .  All CCT measurements were performed by the same examiner, using a:  Rotating Scheimpflug camera topographer (OCULUS-Pentacam®) before and after cataract surgery  NIDEK CEM-530 (specular microscope) previous to the surgery  All measurements were made between 4 and 7 p.m. to avoid diurnal variations of CCT.  The mean of 3 measurements was calculated for each case with the 3 devices.
  5. 5. Specular before Surgery Pentacam before Surgery Pentacam After Surgery CCT (μm) 554.72 ± 29.82 546.09 ± 27.44 546.44 ± 29.33 RESULTS • The Paired Student's t-test only show a statistically significant difference (p<0.05) comparing the pachymetry before cataract surgery with the two devices.
  6. 6. CONCLUSION  NO difference in CCT measurements in adult eyes before and after cataract extraction with Pentacam®  can suggest that the lens opacity does not affect the pachymetry  can also suggest that cataract surgery performed without problems does not change the corneal thickness.  There was a statiscally significative difference in CCT between OCULUS- Pentacam® and NIDEK CEM-530 in eyes before cataract surgery, but is not clinically relevant.  The OCULUS-Pentacam® Rotating Scheimpflug camera topographer and NIDEK CEM-530 specular microscope seems to be 2 interchangeable non- contact devices to measure CCT.
  7. 7. CONCLUSION  NO difference in CCT measurements in adult eyes before and after cataract extraction with Pentacam®  can suggest that the lens opacity does not affect the pachymetry  can also suggest that cataract surgery performed without problems does not change the corneal thickness.  There was a statiscally significative difference in CCT between OCULUS- Pentacam® and NIDEK CEM-530 in eyes before cataract surgery, but is not clinically relevant.  The OCULUS-Pentacam® Rotating Scheimpflug camera topographer and NIDEK CEM-530 specular microscope seems to be 2 interchangeable non- contact devices to measure CCT.

×