Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements with three different optical devices

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authoridUcer, Mehmet Baris / 0000-0002-6807-4909
dc.authorwosidUcer, Mehmet Baris / AAB-3242-2020
dc.contributor.authorUcer, Mehmet Baris
dc.contributor.authorBozkurt, Erdinc
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-01T15:05:41Z
dc.date.available2021-11-01T15:05:41Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.department[Belirlenecek]
dc.description.abstractPurpose: The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate the agreement of central corneal thickness (CCT) values obtained with three different devices working according to optical principle in healthy eyes. Methods: 60 eyes of 60 individuals (30 men and 30 women) were enrolled in this study. CCT measurements performed with Scheimpflug-Placido topographer (Sirius), spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (RTVue) with an anterior segment module, and optical biometer (AL-Scan) were compared. Bland-Altman analysis was used to demonstrate agreement between methods. Results: The mean age was 30.07 +/- 7.313 years (range, 18-47 years). The mean CCT values obtained by RTVue, Sirius, and AL-Scan were 518.25 +/- 36.38 mu m, 526.08 +/- 36.33 mu m, and 513.50 +/- 39.09 mu m, respectively. The mean differences in CCT were 7.83 +/- 14.15 mu m between Sirius and RTVue, 12.58 +/- 11.87 mu m between Sirius and AL-Scan, and 4.75 +/- 4.50 mu m between RTVue and AL-Scan. The mean CCT was statistically different among the three groups (p <0.05). All three modalities of CCT measurements correlated closely with each other, with Pearson's correlation coefficients ranging from 0.924 to 0.961. The 95% limits of agreement were -19.90 to 35.56 mu m between Sirius and RTVue, -10.69 to 35.85 pm between Sirius and AL-Scan, and -4.07 to 13.58 mu m between RTVue and AL-Scan. Conclusion: Different results could be obtained through different noncontact devices in CCT measurements. Although the measurement values obtained by these devices show a high level of correlation, it would be a more correct approach to not use them directly interchangeably in clinical practice. Evaluation and follow-up of CCT should be performed using the same device.
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/2515841421995633
dc.identifier.issn2515-8414
dc.identifier.pmid33748670
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1177/2515841421995633
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11491/7372
dc.identifier.volume13en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000623523100001
dc.identifier.wosqualityN/A
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.institutionauthor[Belirlenecek]
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSage Publications Ltd
dc.relation.ispartofTherapeutic Advances In Ophthalmology
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subjectAL-Scanen_US
dc.subjectcentral corneal thicknessen_US
dc.subjectpachymetryen_US
dc.subjectRTVueen_US
dc.subjectSiriusen_US
dc.titleComparison of central corneal thickness measurements with three different optical devices
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu