Seminars in ophthalmology · 2013
Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements with a rotating scheimpflug camera, a specular microscope, optical low-coherence reflectometry, and ultrasound pachymetry in keratoconic eyes.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cinar Yasin, Cingu Abdullah Kursat, Turkcu Fatih Mehmet, Cinar Tuba, Sahin Alparslan, Yuksel Harun, Ari Seyhmus
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements with a rotating Scheimpflug camera (RSC), noncontact specular microscopy (SM), optical low-coherence reflectometry (OLCR), and ultrasonic pachymetry (UP) in keratoconus (KC) patients.
METHOD: In this prospective study, four CCT measurements taken with an RSC, SM, OLCR, and UP were compared in 81 eyes of 44 consecutive KC patients. The KC patients were divided into four subgroups according to Amsler-Krumeich's KC classification.
RESULTS: The RSC and UP measurements of the CCT were not statistically significant in all the groups. Comparison of the SM vs. the OLCR measurements yielded statistically significant differences in all the KC patients and in all KC stages. In all the KC patients, RSC and OLCR showed a high correlation coefficient factor (r = 0.87, p = 0.000).
CONCLUSION: CCT measurements with RSC are comparable to those achieved with UP. Compared with the other devices, according to SM measurements, the central cornea is thicker in all keratoconic eyes and in all KC grades, and it is thinner according to OLCR. RSC, UP, SM, and OLCR should not be used interchangeably in keratoconic eyes.
METHOD: In this prospective study, four CCT measurements taken with an RSC, SM, OLCR, and UP were compared in 81 eyes of 44 consecutive KC patients. The KC patients were divided into four subgroups according to Amsler-Krumeich's KC classification.
RESULTS: The RSC and UP measurements of the CCT were not statistically significant in all the groups. Comparison of the SM vs. the OLCR measurements yielded statistically significant differences in all the KC patients and in all KC stages. In all the KC patients, RSC and OLCR showed a high correlation coefficient factor (r = 0.87, p = 0.000).
CONCLUSION: CCT measurements with RSC are comparable to those achieved with UP. Compared with the other devices, according to SM measurements, the central cornea is thicker in all keratoconic eyes and in all KC grades, and it is thinner according to OLCR. RSC, UP, SM, and OLCR should not be used interchangeably in keratoconic eyes.