Corneal thickness measurements: scanning-slit corneal topography and noncontact specular microscopy versus ultrasonic pachymetry

Suzuki, Shigenobu; Oshika, Tetsuro; Oki, Kotaro; Sakabe, Isao; Iwase, Aiko; Amano, Shiro; Araie, Makoto

doi:10.1016/S0886-3350(03)00123-8

« Previous Next »Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery
Volume 29, Issue 7 , Pages 1313-1318, July 2003

Corneal thickness measurements: scanning-slit corneal topography and noncontact specular microscopy versus ultrasonic pachymetry☆

Shigenobu Suzuki, MD
- Department of Ophthalmology, University of Tokyo School of Medicine (Suzuki, Amano, Araie), Tokyo, Japan
Tetsuro Oshika, MD
- Reprint requests to Tetsuro Oshika, MD, Department of Ophthalmology, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennoudai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8575, Japan.
- Department of Ophthalmology, University of Tokyo School of Medicine (Suzuki, Amano, Araie), Tokyo, Japan
- Departments of Ophthalmology, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki (Oshika), , Japan
Kotaro Oki, MD
- Oki Eye Clinic (Oki), Tokyo, Japan
Isao Sakabe, MD
- Sakabe Eye Clinic (Sakabe), Tokyo, Japan
Aiko Iwase, MD
- Tajimi Municipal Hospital, Gifu (Iwase), Japan
Shiro Amano, MD
- Department of Ophthalmology, University of Tokyo School of Medicine (Suzuki, Amano, Araie), Tokyo, Japan
Makoto Araie, MD
- Department of Ophthalmology, University of Tokyo School of Medicine (Suzuki, Amano, Araie), Tokyo, Japan

Accepted 17 January 2003.

Abstract

Purpose

To compare central corneal thickness measurements taken with 3 pachymetry systems: Orbscan scanning-slit corneal topography/pachymetry, Topcon SP2000P noncontact specular microscopy, and Tomey ultrasonic pachymetry.

Setting

Multicenter study, Tokyo, Japan.

Methods

In 216 healthy eyes of 114 subjects, scanning-slit topography, noncontact specular microscopy, and ultrasonic pachymetry were used in that sequence to record central corneal thickness. In another 20 healthy eyes of 13 subjects, 2 sets of measurements were repeated for each pachymetry to assess repeatability.

Results

The mean central corneal thickness was compatible between scanning-slit topography (546.9 μm ± 35.4 [SD] ) and ultrasonic pachymetry (548.1 ± 33.0 μm); however, noncontact specular microscopy gave a significantly smaller mean (525.3 ± 31.4 μm) than the other 2 tests (P<.001, Tukey multiple comparison). There were significant linear correlations between scanning-slit topography and noncontact specular microscopy (r = 0.846, P<.001), noncontact specular microscopy and ultrasonic pachymetry (r = 0.897, P<.001), and ultrasonic pachymetry and scanning-slit topography (r = 0.852, P<.001). Noncontact specular microscopy tended to show the best repeatability; however, the difference was not statistically significant (P = .663, repeated-measure analysis of variance).

Conclusions

Corneal thickness readings were comparable between scanning-slit topography and pachymetry; noncontact specular microscopy gave significantly smaller values. The measurements of the 3 methods showed significant linear correlations with one another. All methods provided acceptable repeatability of measurements.