COMPARING CENTRAL CORNEAL COMPARING CENTRAL CORNEAL THICKNESS MEASUREMENTS USING THICKNESS MEASUREMENTS USING

VISANTE OCT, PENTACAM AND GALILEIVISANTE OCT, PENTACAM AND GALILEI

Bernilla E; Izquierdo Jr. L; Miranda M.Bernilla E; Izquierdo Jr. L; Miranda M.Authors have no financial interestAuthors have no financial interest

Instituto de Ojos OFTALMOSALUDInstituto de Ojos OFTALMOSALUDLima-PerúLima-Perú

OBJECTIVEOBJECTIVE

To compare de central corneal thickness To compare de central corneal thickness measurements found using non contact measurements found using non contact methods as are Visante OCT, Pentacam and methods as are Visante OCT, Pentacam and Galilei.Galilei.

MATERIALS AND METHODSMATERIALS AND METHODS

• Prospective, comparative, and double blinded study Prospective, comparative, and double blinded study measuring central corneal thickness on 50 eyes of 25 measuring central corneal thickness on 50 eyes of 25 patients being evaluated for refractive surgery. The patients being evaluated for refractive surgery. The measurements were taken by three different researchers measurements were taken by three different researchers without knowing the previous results obtained by the without knowing the previous results obtained by the other devices.other devices.

• We analyzed the thickness averages, maximum and We analyzed the thickness averages, maximum and minimum values, and their standard deviations. The minimum values, and their standard deviations. The statistical analysis was made using ANOVA testing and statistical analysis was made using ANOVA testing and SPSS v 15.SPSS v 15.

Our subjects mean age was 30.8 (SD=5.736). The central thickness Our subjects mean age was 30.8 (SD=5.736). The central thickness average for Visante OCT was 530.02 ± 30.682, for Pentacam was average for Visante OCT was 530.02 ± 30.682, for Pentacam was 554.76 ± 32.028, and for Galilei was 562.38 ± 29.21. When comparing 554.76 ± 32.028, and for Galilei was 562.38 ± 29.21. When comparing the three devices we found that there’s a statistical difference the three devices we found that there’s a statistical difference between the measurements (p=0.000), and when comparing between the measurements (p=0.000), and when comparing Pentacam vs Galilei that difference is not found (p=0.648).Pentacam vs Galilei that difference is not found (p=0.648).

RESULTSRESULTS

RESULTSRESULTS

GalileiPentacamVisante

Mea

n

570

560

550

540

530

520

562

555

530

The central thickness average for Visante OCT was 530.02 ± 30.682, for The central thickness average for Visante OCT was 530.02 ± 30.682, for Pentacam was 554.76 ± 32.028, and for Galilei was 562.38 ± 29.21Pentacam was 554.76 ± 32.028, and for Galilei was 562.38 ± 29.21

Bonferroni

-24.74* 6.133 .000 -39.59 -9.89-32.36* 6.133 .000 -47.21 -17.5124.74* 6.133 .000 9.89 39.59-7.62 6.133 .648 -22.47 7.2332.36* 6.133 .000 17.51 47.217.62 6.133 .648 -7.23 22.47

(J) GRUPOpentacamgalileivisantegalileivisantepentacam

(I) GRUPOvisante

pentacam

galilei

MeanDifference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound95% Confidence Interval

The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.*.

RESULTSRESULTS

Mean of Mean of corneal thickness measurementcorneal thickness measurement value was not statistically value was not statistically significant significant comparing the three devices.comparing the three devices.

Our subjects mean age was 30.8 (SD=5.736). The central thickness Our subjects mean age was 30.8 (SD=5.736). The central thickness average for Visante OCT was 530.02 ± 30.682, for Pentacam was average for Visante OCT was 530.02 ± 30.682, for Pentacam was 554.76 ± 32.028, and for Galilei was 562.38 ± 29.21. When comparing 554.76 ± 32.028, and for Galilei was 562.38 ± 29.21. When comparing the three devices we found that there’s a statistical difference the three devices we found that there’s a statistical difference between the measurements (p=0.000), and when comparing between the measurements (p=0.000), and when comparing Pentacam vs Galilei that difference is not found (p=0.648).Pentacam vs Galilei that difference is not found (p=0.648).

CONCLUSION CONCLUSION