Comparison between OrbscanIIz, Pentacam, Ultrasound Pachymetry (Tomey SP-100) at Different Stages of Keratoconus

Main Article Content

E. Pateras
Ch. Koufala

Abstract

Aims: To compare results of OrbscanIIz and Pentacam and Ultrasound pachymetry at different stages of keratoconus on corneal thickness.

Sample and Study Design: 94 keratoconic patients participated in the study, of which 52 were men and 42 women. Keratoconus patients were measured with OrbscanIIz, Pentacam and Ultrasound pachymetry in pre-operation examinations for corneal collagen cross-linking. The patients belong to different keratoconus stages.

Place and Duration of Study: University of West Attica Dept Biomedical Sciensce Course Optics & Optometry in collaboration with Athens “Ophthalmologico” Clinic during the period between October 2017 to January 2019.

Methodology: Corneal Pachymetry maps correlation of three types of corneal pachymeters OrbscanIIz, Pentacam and Ultrasound pachymetry (Tomey SP-100 Pachymeter). The measurements of the thinnest point of the cornea from each patient were collected at different stages of keratoconus and compared.

Results: A sample of 188 eyes were measured at different stages of keratoconus and compared for the thinnest corneal thickness with three different measurement systems, OrbscanIIz ,Pentacam and Ultrasound pachymetry. At sublinical stage Orbscan-Pentacam had Correlation coefficient r=0,7971, Orbscan-Ultrasound r=0,7483 and Pentacam-Ultrasound r=0,9442. At 1st stage Orbscan-Pentacam had Correlation coefficient r=0,8913, Orbscan-Ultrasound r=0,8151 and Pentacam-Ultrasound r=0,8151. At 2nd stage Orbscan-Pentacam had Correlation coefficient r=0,9339, Orbscan-Ultrasound r=0,8819 and Pentacam-Ultrasound r=0,9633. For 3rd stage Orbscan-Pentacam had Correlation coefficient r=0,8317, Orbscan-Ultrasound r=0,8457 and Pentacam-Ultrasound r=0,9633. For 4th stage Orbscan-Pentacam had Correlation coefficient r=-0,4655, Orbscan-Ultrasound r=0,3089 and Pentacam-Ultrasound r=0,9633. In Iatrogenic keratoectasiaafter refractive surgery Orbscan-Pentacam had Correlation coefficient r=0,9327, Orbscan-Ultrasound r=0,3089 and Pentacam-Ultrasound r=0,9859.

Conclusion: Statistical differences between OrbscanIIz, Pentacam and Ultrasound pachymetry were found for corneal thickness in all stages of keratoconus for the thinnest point measured. Orbscan-Pentacam have statistical significant differences but weak to moderate correlation. Orbscan-Ultasound have also statistical significant differences their correlation is very weak, while Pentacam-Ultrasound have statistical significant differences smaller as the previous but their correlation is very strong at all stages of keratoconus.

Keywords:
Keratoconus, corneal pachymetry, orbscanIIz, pentacam, ultrasound, corneal thickness correlation.

Article Details

How to Cite
Pateras, E., & Koufala, C. (2020). Comparison between OrbscanIIz, Pentacam, Ultrasound Pachymetry (Tomey SP-100) at Different Stages of Keratoconus. Ophthalmology Research: An International Journal, 13(2), 7-33. https://doi.org/10.9734/or/2020/v13i230163
Section
Original Research Article

References

Vazirani J, Basu S. “Keratoconus: current perspectives. ClinOphthalmol. 2013;7:2019- 30.

Available:http://lessons4medicos.blogspot.com/2009/04/corneal-pigmentation-decoded.html

Mas Tur V, MacGregor C, Jayaswal R, O'Brart D, Maycock N. “A review of keratoconus: Diagnosis, pathophysiology, and genetics”. SurvOphthalmol. Nov - Dec; 2017;62(6):770-783

Available:https://webeye.ophth.uiowa.edu/eyeforum/atlas/pages/vogts-striae.htm.

Chang HY, Chodosh J. “The genetics of keratoconus”. SeminOphthalmol. 2013;28(5-6):275-80.

Available:https://indoredrishti.wordpress.com/keratoconus-2/

Available:https://timroot.com/rizzutis-corneal-light-reflex-seen-in-keratoconus-video/

Karimian F, Aramesh S, Rabei HM, Javadi MA, Rafati N. “Topographic evaluation of relatives of patients with keratoconus” Cornea 2008;27:874–878.

Aknin C, Allart JF, Rouland JF. “Unilateral keratoconus and mirror image in a pair of83 monozygotic twins”. J FrOphtalmol. 2007;30:899–902.

Weed KH, MacEwen CJ, McGhee CN. “The variable expression of keratoconus within monozygotic twins: Dundee University Scottish Keratoconus Study (DUSKS)”. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2006; 29:123–126.

Nielsen K, Hjortdal J, Pihlmann M, Corydon TJ. (“Update on the Keratoconus. Genetics”. ActaOphthalmol. 2013;291:106-13.

McMonnies CW. “Mechanisms of rubbing-related corneal trauma in keratoconus”. Cornea. 2009;28(6):607-15.

Balasubramanian SA, Pye DC, Willcox MD.“Effects of Eye Rubbing on the Levels of protease, protease activity and cytokines in tears: relevance in keratoconus”. ClinExpOptom. 2013; 96:214-8.

T Georgiou CL. FunnellACassels- Brown R O'Conor “Influence of ethnic origin on the incidence of keratoconus and associated atopic disease in Asians and white patients” April Eye. 2004;18(4):379-83

Loukovitis E, Sfakianakis K, et al. “Genetic Aspects of Keratoconus: A Literature Review Exploring Potential Genetic Contributions and Possible Genetic Relationships with Comorbidities”. OphthalmolTher. 2018;7(2):263-292.

Available:https://www.amedeolucente.it/public/Orbscan%202.pdf

Available:https://www.pentacam.com/int/ophthalmologist-with pentacam/service/interpretation-guide.html

Available:https://www.aoa.org/Documents/optometric-staff/Articles/Understanding-Corneal-Topography.pdf

Available:https://tomey.de/en/products/ultrasound/sp-100

KuddusiTeberik, Mehmet Tahir Eski , Murat Kaya, Handan Ankaralı “Comparison of Central Corneal Thickness With Four Different Optical Devices” IntOphthalmol. 2018;38(6):2363-2369 DOI: 10.1007/s10792-017-0736-7

NesrinBuyuktortopGokcinar, ErhanYumusak, NurgulOrnek, SerapYorubulut, ZaferOnaran "Agreement and Repeatability of Central Corneal Thickness Measurements by Four Different Optical Devices and an Ultrasound Pachymeter” IntOphthalmol 2019;39(7):1589-1598. DOI: 10.1007/s10792-018-0983-2

Mustafa Doğan, ElifErtan “Comparison of Central Corneal Thickness Measurements With Standard Ultrasonic Pachymetry and Optical Devices” ClinExpOptom 2019;102(2):126-130.

DOI: 10.1111/cxo.12865.

Ertugrul Can, HilalEser-Ozturk , Mustafa Duran, TugbaCetinkaya, NursenArıturk “Comparison of Central Corneal Thickness Measurements Using Different Imaging Devices and Ultrasound Pachymetry” Indian J Ophthalmol 2019;67(4):496-499.

DOI:10.4103/ijo.IJO_960_18.

Thomas Desmond, Patricia Arthur, Kathleen Watt “Comparison of Central Corneal Thickness Measurements by Ultrasound Pachymetry and 2 New Devices, TonorefIII and RS-3000” IntOphthalmol. 2019;39(4):917-923.

DOI:10.1007/s10792-018-0895-1

Geng-Sheng Hao, Li Zeng, Yu-Ru Li, Dan Shui “Agreement and Repeatability of Central Corneal Thickness Measurement Using the Pentacam and Ultrasound Pachymetry” Zhonghua Yan KeZaZhi. 2011;47(2):142-5.

Zaina N Al-Mohtaseb, Li Wang, Mitchell P Weikert “Repeatability and Comparability of Corneal Thickness Measurements Obtained From Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer and From Ultrasonic Pachymetry” Graefes Arch ClinExpOphthalmol.2013;251(7):1855-60

Debarun Dutta,Harsha L Rao, Uday K Addepalli, Pravin K Vaddavalli. “Corneal Thickness in Keratoconus: Comparing Optical, Ultrasound, and Optical Coherence Tomography Pachymetry” Ophthalmology Volume. 2013;120(3)457-463

Tai Lai-Yong, KhawKeat-Ween, NgChoung-Min, SubrayanVisvaraja “Central Corneal Thickness Measurements With Different Imaging Devices and Ultrasound Pachymetry Cornea: 2013;32(6):766-771.

YasinÇJnar, Abdullah KürGatCingü, MuhammedFahin, AlparslanFahin,HarunYüksel, Fatih Mehmet Türkcü, Tuba ÇJnar, EhsanÇaça. “Comparison of Optical versus Ultrasonic Biometry in Keratoconic Eyes. Hindawi Publishing Corporation Journal of Ophthalmology.2013;6.

Claudia Maria Prospero Ponce, KarolinneMaiaRocha, Scott D.Smith, MPH Ronald R.Krueger, MSE “Central and peripheral corneal thickness measured with optical coherence tomography, Scheimpflug imaging, and ultrasound pachymetry in normal, keratoconus-suspect, and post–laser in situ keratomileusis eyes” Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2009;35(6),1055-1062.

Mukesh Kumar, Rohit Shetty, ChaitraJayadev, Debarun Dutta “Comparability and repeatability of pachymetry in keratoconus using four noncontact techniques” Indian J Ophthalmol. 2015; 63(9):722–727.

DOI: 10.4103/0301-4738.170987

Gromacki SJ, Barr JT. “Central and peripheral corneal thickness in keratoconus and normal patient groups”. Optom Vis Sci.1994;71:437–41.

Oliveira CM, Ribeiro C, Franco S. “Corneal imaging with slit-scanning and Scheimpflug imaging techniques”.ClinExpOptom.2011;94:33–42.

Liu Z, Huang AJ, Pflugfelder SC. “Evaluation of corneal thickness and topography in normal eyes using the Orbscan corneal topography system”.Br J Ophthalmol.1999;83(7):774–778.

Prospero Ponce CM, Rocha KM, Smith SD, Krueger RR. “Central and peripheral corneal thickness measured with optical coherence tomography, Scheimpflug imaging, and ultrasound pachymetry in normal, keratoconus-suspect, and post-laser in situ keratomileusiseyes.” J Cataract Refract Surg.2009;35:1055–62.

Uçakhan OO, Ozkan M, Kanpolat A. “Corneal thickness measurements in normal and keratoconic eyes: Pentacam comprehensive eye scanner versus noncontact specular microscopy and ultrasound pachymetry”.J Cataract Refract Surg.2006;32:970–7

Gherghel D, Hosking SL, Mantry S, Banerjee S, Naroo SA, Shah S. “Corneal pachymetry in normal and keratoconic eyes: Orbscan II versus ultrasound”.J Cataract Refract Surg.2004;30:1272–7.

Hassan Hashemi Shiva Mehravaran “Central corneal thickness measurement with Pentacam, Orbscan II, and ultrasound devices before and after laser refractive surgery for myopia” Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2007;33(10):1701-1707.

ErhanÖzyol, PelinÖzyol “Comparison of central corneal thickness with four noncontact devices: An agreement analysis of swept-source technology” Indian J Ophthalmol. 2017;65(6):461-465.

DOI:10.4103/ijo.IJO_618_16.

Jorge J, Rosado J, Díaz-Rey J, González-Méijome J. Central corneal thickness and anterior chamber depth measurement by Sirius ® Scheimpflug tomography and ultrasound.ClinOphthalmol.2013;7:417–22.

de Sanctis U, Missolungi A, Mutani B, Richiardi L, Grignolo FM. Reproducibility and repeatability of central corneal thickness measurement in keratoconus using the rotating Scheimpflug camera and ultrasound pachymetry.Am J Ophthalmol.2007;144:712–8.

Chen S, Huang J, Wen D, Chen W, Huang D, Wang Q. Measurement of central corneal thickness by high-resolution Scheimpflug imaging, Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography and ultrasound pachymetry. ActaOphthalmol. 2012;90:449–55.

Maddalena De Bernardo; Rosa, Nicola “Central corneal thickness measurement with different devices in keratoconic patients” Journal of Current Ophthalmology. Tehran; 2018;30(1): 97.

Ahmad Muhammad Ijaz, Qureshi, Manzoor Ahmad, Ahmad Muhammad Shakeel, AldebasiYousef Homood. “Central corneal thickness; comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by Pentacam and Ultrasound pachymetry, in myopic and keratoconus eyes”. Professional Medical Journal. 2018;25(2),252-260-7.

ÜnlüMetin, AkçamHanife Tuba,YükselErdem, HondurAhmetMurad. “Comparison of Central Corneal Thickness Measurement Using Ultrasound Pachymetry and Current Diagnostic Devices in Normal and Keratoconic Eyes”. Glokom-Katarakt/Journal of Glaucoma-Cataract. 2017;12(2),98-103:6.

Javier González-Pérez,Juan QueirugaPiñeiro,ÁngelxSánchez García, José Manuel González Méijome “Comparison of Central Corneal Thickness Measured by Standard Ultrasound Pachymetry, Corneal Topography, Tono-Pachymetry and Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography” Journal Current Eye Research. Volume 43, 2018;43:(7):866-872.