Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Central corneal thickness measurement using ultrasonic pachymetry, rotating scheimpflug camera, and scanning-slit topography exclusively in thin non-keratoconic corneas
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Central corneal thickness measurement using ultrasonic pachymetry, rotating scheimpflug camera, and scanning-slit topography exclusively in thin non-keratoconic corneas
Do you wish to request the book?
Central corneal thickness measurement using ultrasonic pachymetry, rotating scheimpflug camera, and scanning-slit topography exclusively in thin non-keratoconic corneas
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Central corneal thickness measurement using ultrasonic pachymetry, rotating scheimpflug camera, and scanning-slit topography exclusively in thin non-keratoconic corneas
2016
Overview
Purpose: To evaluate the agreement among Pentacam, Orbscan and ultrasound (US) pachymetry for measurement of central corneal thickness (CCT) in thin corneas with normal topographic pattern.
Methods: We included 88 eyes of 44 refractive surgery candidates with thinnest pachymetric readings of 500 micrometers (μm) or less on Orbscan, a normal topographic pattern, no sign of keratoconus, and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/20. Pentacam, Orbscan and US were performed in one session by the same examiner. Exclusion criteria were history of ocular surgery, topographic abnormalities suggesting forme fruste keratoconus or keratectasia, and recent contact lens wear.
Results: The difference in CCT measurements by US pachymetry and Orbscan II [using an acoustic factor (AF) of 0.92] ranged from −34 to +34 μm. The difference between the thinnest point and central readings measured by US reached 16 μm with Orbscan II (AF: 0.92) and 2 μm with Pentacam. Mean differences between the employed devices were 0.2 μm for Pentacam versus US (P = 0.727), 30.1 μm for uncorrected Orbscan versus US (P < 0.001), 10.4 μm for Orbscan II (AF = 0.92) versus US (P < 0.001), and 0.2 μm for Orbscan II (AF = 0.94) versus US (P = 0.851).
Conclusion: In normal thin corneas, Pentacam demonstrated better agreement with US pachymetry as compared to corrected Orbscan readings. Results achieved by Orbscan were better consistent with US pachymetry using an AF of 0.94. We speculate that a dynamically graded AF in reverse proportion to CCT constitutes a better approach for correcting Orbscan measurements.
