Determining the mean difference in central corneal thickness measured by applanation ultrasound and oculus Wavelight Occulyzer II

Authors

  • Dr Ronak afza memon Liaquat national hospital karachi
  • Dr munira Shakir Ophthalmology,Liaquat national hospital karachi
  • Dr Sahira Wasim Ophthalmology,Liaquat national hospital karachi

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36351/pjo.v35i4.914

Keywords:

Central corneal thickness, ultrasound pachymeter, oculus Wavelight Occulyzer II

Abstract

Abstract

Objective: The objective is to determine the mean difference of central corneal thickness measurements by using ultrasound pachymeter and oculus Wavelight Occulyzer II.

Patients & Methods: This prospective cross-sectional comparative study was conducted at Department of Ophthalmology, Liaquat National Hospital, Karachi for 6 months duration, after the approval from ethical committee. Patients were included in our study on the basis of inclusion & exclusion criteria. Central corneal thickness measurements was taken by using ultrasound pachymeter & oculus Wavelight Occulyzer II. All the data was collected by single researcher. The results were plotted, compared & analyzed.

Results: 130 patients attending ophthalmology department and fulfilling the inclusion criteria were assessed. One eye of each patient was measured (65 were right eye and 65 were left eye). 73(56.2%) were male and 57(43.8%) were females. Mean age of these patients was 33.9 ±8.9 years. The mean ± SD thinnest oculus Wavelight Occulyzer II measurement was 538.61±23.46 ?m and ranged between 476.0 and 619.0 ?m whereas the mean thinnest ultrasound pachymeter measurement was 535.1±21.816?m and ranged between 482 and 601 ?m. There was highly significant correlation of central corneal thickness between both the instruments. (r=0.96, p<0.001) 

Conclusion: According to the results of our study there is a highly correlation of central corneal thickness was found between the readings obtained from both UP and oculus Wavelight Occulyzer II. So we concluded that oculus Wavelight Occulyzer II can be used as an alternative technique to ultrasound pachymetry while assessing CCT in clinical settings to  decrease the risk of procedure associated problems with UP like epithelial trauma and infection, to decrease the frequent use of topical anesthetic agents, for early detection and management of glaucoma & in anxious patients also.

Keywords: Central corneal thickness, ultrasound pachymeter, oculus Wavelight Occulyzer II

 

References

REFRENCES
1. Qamar-ul-Islam SM. Comparison of central corneal thickness measurement using non-contact and contact pachymetry devices in normal eyes. Pak J Ophthalmol. 2015;31(1):27-32.

2. AlFarhan HM. Measurements of central corneal thickness using two immersion ultrasound techniques and optical technique. J Pak Med Assoc. 2014;64(3):266-70.

3. Rashid RF, Farhood QK. Measurement of central corneal thickness by ultrasonic pachymeter and oculus pentacam in patients with well-controlled glaucoma: hospital-based comparative study. Clinical ophthalmol. 2016;10:359-64.

4. Khater MM. Comparative study between oculus Wavelight Occulyzer II and Quantel Pocket II ultrasonic pachymeter in measuring central corneal thickness. Tanta Med J. 2016;44(1):1-3.

5. Bayhan HA, Bayhan SA, Can ?. Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements with three new optical devices and a standard ultrasonic pachymeter. Intern J ophthalmol. 2014;7(2):302-8.

6. Yazdani S, Doozandeh A, Haghighat M, Akbarian S, Pakravan M, Yaseri M. Intrasubject difference in CCT among POAG versus normal individuals. Optomet Vision Sci. 2015;92(8):879-83.

7. Sadoughi MM, Einollahi B, Einollahi N, Rezaei J, Roshandel D, Feizi S. Measurement of central corneal thickness using ultrasound pachymetry and Orbscan II in normal eyes. J Ophth Vision Resear. 2015;10(1):4-9.

8. Zlatanovi? M, Živkovi? M, Hristov A, Stojkovi? V, Novak S, Zlatanovi? N, Brzakovi? M. Central corneal thickness measured by the oculyzer, biograph, and ultrasound pachymetry. Acta Medica Med. 2019;58(2):33-7.

9. Al-Mezaine HS, Al-Amro SA, Kangave D, Sadaawy A, Wehaib TA, Al-Obeidan S. Comparison between central corneal thickness measurements by oculus pentacam and ultrasonic pachymetry. Internl Ophthalmol. 2008;28(5):333-8.

10. O'Donnell C, Maldonado-Codina C. Agreement and repeatability of central thickness measurement in normal corneas using ultrasound pachymetry and the Oculus Pentacam. Cornea. 2005;24(8):920-4.

11. Rainer G, Findl O, Petternel V, Kiss B, Drexler W, Skorpik C, et al. Central corneal thickness measurements with partial coherence interferometry, ultrasound, and the Orbscan system. Ophthalmol. 2004;111(5):875-9.

12. Lackner B, Schmidinger G, Pieh S, Funovics MA, Skorpik C. Repeatability and reproducibility of central corneal thickness measurement with Pentacam, Orbscan, and ultrasound. Optomet Vision Sci. 2005;82(10):892-9.

13. Wong AC, Wong CC, Yuen NS, Hui SP. Correlational study of central corneal thickness measurements on Hong Kong Chinese using optical coherence tomography, Orbscan and ultrasound pachymetry. Eye. 2002;16(6):715-21.

14. Amiri MA, Hashemi H, Ramin S, Yekta A, Taheri A, Nabovati P, et al. Corneal thickness measurements with Scheimpflug and slit scanning imaging techniques in keratoconus. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2017;29(1):23-7.

15. Amano S, Honda N, Amano Y, Yamagami S, Miyai T, Samejima T, et al. Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by rotating Scheimpflug camera, ultrasonic pachymetry, and scanning-slit corneal topography. Ophthalmol. 2006;113(6):937-41.

16. Tai LY, Khaw KW, Ng CM, Subrayan V. Central corneal thickness measurements with different imaging devices and ultrasound pachymetry. Cornea. 2013;32(6):766-71.

17. Kocamis O, Kilic R. Repeatability, Reproducibility and Agreement of Central Corneal Thickness Measurements by Two Noncontact Pachymetry Devices. Medical Hypoth Disc Innovat Ophthalmol J. 2019;8(1):34-9.

18. Binnawi KH, Elzubeir H, Osman E, Abdu M, Abdu M. Central corneal thickness measurement using ultrasonic pachymeter, optical coherence tomography, and TMS-5 topographer. Oman J Ophthalmol. 2019;12(1):15-9

19. Piotrowiak I, Soldanska B, Burduk M, Kaluzny BJ, Kaluzny J. Measuring corneal thickness with SOCT, the Scheimpflug system, and ultrasound pachymetry. ISRN Ophthalmol. 2012;2012.1-5

20. Tam ES, Rootman DS. Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by specular microscopy, ultrasound pachymetry, and ultrasound biomicroscopy. J Catar Refract Surg. 2003;29(6):1179-84.

Published

26-11-2021

How to Cite

1.
memon DR afza, Shakir D munira, Wasim DS. Determining the mean difference in central corneal thickness measured by applanation ultrasound and oculus Wavelight Occulyzer II. pak J Ophthalmol [Internet]. 2021 Nov. 26 [cited 2024 Mar. 29];35(3). Available from: https://www.pjo.org.pk/index.php/pjo/article/view/914

Issue

Section

Original Articles