The study was conducted to assess the central corneal thickness (CCT) of the healthy cornea with a recently developed noncontact specular microscope (EM-3000; Tomey) and compare the results with those measured with a contact specular microscope and an ultrasound pachymeter. Agreement between measurements taken by 2 investigators was also studied.
Methods
The right eyes of 41 healthy individuals who had negative history of contact lens wear, ophthalmic disease, or ocular surgery were examined. The CCT was determined sequentially with a non-contact specular microscope, a contact specular microscope (EM-1000; Tomey), and an ultrasound pachymeter (AL-2000; Tomey). Each evaluation with the specular microscopes was performed by 2 independent operators.
Results
A significant difference was detected in pachymetry measurements among the 3 instruments (p=0.01; analysis of variance). The mean CCT values were lower measured with the ultrasound pachymeter(537±30 μm) than the contact endothelial microscope (543±37 μm, p=0.17, Student t-test) and the noncontact microscope (549±33 μm, p<0.0001) (operator 1). There was no statistically significant difference in CCT measurements between the 2 endothelial microscopes (p=0.19). We found significant correlations (p<0.0001) in thickness measurements between each pair of instruments (r=0.91, noncontact microscopy and ultrasound pachymetry; r=0.74, noncontact and contact microscopy; r=0.72, contact microscopy and ultrasound pachymetry; Spearman rank correlation).
Conclusions
The strong correlations among the 3 pachymetry devices suggest that the tested instruments provide reliable measurements; however, they cannot be used interchangeably.
KawanaK., TokunagaT., MiyataK., OkamotoF., KiuchiT., OshikaT.Comparison of corneal thickness measurements using Orbscan II, noncontact specular microscopy and ultrasonic pachymetry in eyes after laser in situ keratomileusis. Br J Ophthalmol2004; 88: 466–8.
2.
MódisL.Jr., LangenbucherA., SeitzB.Corneal thickness measurements with contact and noncontact specular microscopic and ultrasonic pachymetry. Am J Ophthalmol2001; 132: 517–21.
3.
MódisL.Jr., LangenbucherA., SeitzB.Corneal endothelial cell density and pachymetry measured by contact and noncontact specular microscopy. J Cataract Refract Surg2002; 28: 1763–9.
4.
ZhaoM.H., ZouJ., WangW.Q., LiJ.Comparison of central corneal thickness as measured by non-contact specular microscopy and ultrasound pachymetry before and post LASIK. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol2007; 35: 818–23.
5.
CavanaghH.D., El-AghaM.S., PetrollW.M., JesterJ.V.Specular microscopy, confocal microscopy, and ultrasound biomicroscopy diagnostic tools of the past quarter century. Cornea2000; 19: 712–22.
6.
LassJ.H., KhosrofS.A., LaurenceJ.K., HorwitzB., GhoshK., AdamsonsI.A double-masked, randomized, 1-year study comparing the corneal effects of dorzolamide, timolol, and betaxolol. Dorzolamide Corneal Effects Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol1998; 116: 1003–10.
7.
LiuZ., PflugfelderS.C.Corneal thickness is reduced in dry eye. Cornea1999; 18: 403–7.
8.
GromackiS.J., BarrJ.T.Central and peripheral corneal thickness in keratoconus and normal patient groups. Optom Vis Sci1994; 71: 437–41.
9.
KawanaK., MiyataK., TokunagaT., KiuchiT., HiraokaT., OshikaT.Central corneal thickness measurements using Orbscan II scanning slit topography, noncontact specular microscopy, and ultrasonic pachymetry in eyes with keratoconus. Cornea2005; 24: 967–71.
10.
DoughtyM.J., ZamanM.L.Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta-analysis approach. Surv Ophthalmol2000; 44: 367–408.
11.
BustedN., OlsenT., SchmitzO.Clinical observations on the corneal thickness and the corneal endothelium in diabetes mellitus. Br J Ophthalmol1981; 65: 687–90.
12.
ShihC.Y., Graff ZivinJ.S., TrokelS.L., TsaiJ.C.Clinical significance of central corneal thickness in the management of glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol2004; 122: 1270–5.
13.
MartinR., de JuanV., RodriguezG., FonsecaS., MartinS.Contact lens-induced corneal peripheral swelling differences with extended wear. Cornea2008; 27: 976–9.
14.
MoezziA.M., FonnD., SimpsonT., SorbaraL.Contact lens-induced corneal swelling and surface changes measured with the Orbscan II corneal topographer. Optom Vis Sci2004; 81: 189–93.
15.
BovelleR., KaufmanS.C., ThompsonH.W., HamanoH.Corneal thickness measurements with the Topcon SP-2000P specular microscope and an ultrasound pachymeter. Arch Ophthalmol1999; 117: 868–70.
16.
MódisL.Jr., LangenbucherA., SeitzB.Scanning-slit and specular microscopic pachymetry in comparison with ultrasonic determination of corneal thickness. Cornea2001; 20: 711–4.
17.
HaraM., MorishigeN., ChikamaT., NishidaT.Comparison of confocal biomicroscopy and noncontact specular microscopy for evaluation of the corneal endothelium. Cornea2003; 22: 512–5.
18.
KlaisC.M., BührenJ., KohnenT.Comparison of endothelial cell count using confocal and contact specular microscopy. Ophthalmologica2003; 217: 99–103.
19.
SuzukiS., OshikaT., OkiK.Corneal thickness measurements using scanning-slit corneal topography and noncontact specular microscopy versus ultrasonic pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg2003; 29: 1313–8.
20.
HitzenbergerC.K., BaumgartnerA., DrexlerW., FercherA.F.Interferometric measurement of corneal thickness with micrometer precision. Am J Ophthalmol1994; 118: 468–76.
21.
LiH., LeungC.K., WongL.Comparative study of central corneal thickness measurement with slit-lamp optical coherence tomography and visante optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology2008; 115: 796–801.
22.
KimH.Y., BudenzD.L., LeeP.S., FeuerW.J., BartonK.Comparison of central corneal thickness using anterior segment optical coherence tomography vs ultrasound pachymetry. Am J Ophthalmol2008; 145: 228–32.
23.
FujiokaM., NakamuraM., TatsumiY., KusuharaA., MaedaH., NegiA.Comparison of Pentacam Scheimpflug camera with ultrasound pachymetry and noncontact specular microscopy in measuring central corneal thickness. Curr Eye Res2007; 32: 89–94.
24.
CiolinoJ.B., KhachikianS.S., BelinM.W.Comparison of corneal thickness measurements by ultrasound and Scheimpflug photography in eyes that have undergone laser in situ keratomileusis. Am J Ophthalmol2008; 145: 75–80.
25.
du ToitR., VegaJ.A., FonnD., SimpsonT.Diurnal variation of corneal sensitivity and thickness. Cornea2003; 22: 205–9.
26.
BlandJ.M., AltmanD.G.Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet1986; 1: 307–10.
27.
BlandJ.M., AltmanD.G.Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res1999; 8: 135–60.
McCareyB.E., EdelhauserH.F., LynnM.J.Review of corneal endothelial specular microscopy for FDA clinical trials of refractive procedures, surgical devices, and new intraocular drugs and solutions. Cornea2008; 27: 1–16.
30.
DubbelmanM., Van der HeijdeG.L.The shape of the aging human lens: curvature, equivalent refractive index and the lens paradox. Vision Res2001; 41: 1867–77.
31.
IsagerP., HjortdalJ.O., EhlersN.Magnification changes in specular microscopy after corneal refractive surgery. Acta Ophthalmol Scand1999; 77: 391–3.
MandellR.B.Corneal power correction factor for photorefractive keratectomy. J Refract Corneal Surg1994; 10: 125–8.
34.
PatelS., BoydK.E., BurnsJ.Age, stability of the precorneal tear film and the refractive index of tears. Cont Lens Anterior Eye2000; 23: 44–7.
35.
BourneW.M., EnochJ.M.Some optical principles of the clinical specular microscope. Invest Ophthalmol1976; 15: 29–32.
36.
NissenJ., HjortdalJ.O., EhlersN., Frost-LarsenK., SørensenT.A clinical comparison of optical and ultrasonic pachometry. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh)1991; 69: 659–63.
37.
NicholsJ.J., KosunickG.M., BullimoreM.A.Reliability of corneal thickness and endothelial cell density measures. J Refract Surg2003; 19: 344–52.
38.
TarnE.S., RootmanD.S.Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by specular microscopy, ultrasound pachymetry, and ultrasound biomicroscopy. J Cataract Refract Surg2003; 29: 1179–84.
39.
LamA.K., ChenD.Pentacam pachometry: comparison with non-contact specular microscopy on the central cornea and inter-session repeatability on the peripheral cornea. Clin Exp Optom2007; 90: 108–14.
