Transcript
Page 1: Comparison of Central Corneal Thickness and Anterior Chamber Depth Measurements between Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography and Scheimpflug Imaging

Comparison of Central Corneal Thickness and Anterior Chamber Depth Measurements between Anterior Segment Optical Coherence

Tomography and Scheimpflug Imaging

Khairidzan Mohd Kamal MD

Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, International Islamic University Malaysia

The author have no financial interest in the subject matter of this poster

Page 2: Comparison of Central Corneal Thickness and Anterior Chamber Depth Measurements between Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography and Scheimpflug Imaging

Introduction

Central Corneal Thickness

Central Corneal Thickness

Anterior Chamber Depth

Anterior Chamber Depth

Biometric TechnologyBiometric Technology

Indicator for corneal metabolism and hydration status

Important parameter in characterization of corneal disease

Basic parameter in the planning of laser refractive surgery

Partial Coherent Interferometry

We sought to evaluate the comparability of different non-contact methods for the analysis of the central corneal thickness and anterior chamber depth in the phakic eye

Determine the actual position of the lens.

Assessment of accommodation-induced configuration changes of the phakic eye

Useful parameter in the planning of lens refractive surgery

Accurate and reliable determination of anterior segment biometry is important in laser and lens refractive surgery

Ultrasound pachymetry has been the traditional “gold standard” for biometry measurement. However, the are newer non-contact optical technologies available.

Scheimpflug ImagingSlit scanning Anterior Segment OCT

Page 3: Comparison of Central Corneal Thickness and Anterior Chamber Depth Measurements between Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography and Scheimpflug Imaging

The study is to compare two different

non-contact

Purpose

Methods

Cross sectional

Prospective

108 healthy eyes

54 subjects aged 20-25 years old

IIUM Eye Specialist Clinic Kuantan Pahang.

Central Corneal Thickness

Anterior Chamber Depth

Strategy Strategy SubjectsSubjects MeasurementsMeasurements

Anterior Segment Optical Coherent Tomography

Scheimpflug Imaging

ToolsTools

In measuring

Anterior Chamber

Depth

Central Corneal

Thickness

Anterior Segment Optical Coherent Tomography (ASOCT)

The image-acquisition system provides a video image of the examined zone and stores the last 7 images at a rate of 8 frames per second

The software interprets the selected image.

The image is reconstructed to provide biometry information

Anterior Segment Optical Coherent Tomography (ASOCT)

The image-acquisition system provides a video image of the examined zone and stores the last 7 images at a rate of 8 frames per second

The software interprets the selected image.

The image is reconstructed to provide biometry information

Scheimpflug Imaging (SI)

Sectional image were measured and recorded

CCD camera rotates and provides section planes from three spatial

planes

The measured data obtained are used to calculate a 3D model from which the

thickness and the anterior chamber depth can be computed

Scheimpflug Imaging (SI)

Sectional image were measured and recorded

CCD camera rotates and provides section planes from three spatial

planes

The measured data obtained are used to calculate a 3D model from which the

thickness and the anterior chamber depth can be computed

Page 4: Comparison of Central Corneal Thickness and Anterior Chamber Depth Measurements between Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography and Scheimpflug Imaging

Result

Variables Mean (SD) µm

Mean difference (95% CI) µm

p-value

CCT (ASOCT) 526.61 (28.06) -13.42 (-14.54 to -11.95) p<0.05

CCT (Scheimpflug) 539.85 (27.01)

Variables Mean (SD) µm

Mean difference (95% CI) µm

p-value

ACD (ASOCT) 3.17 (0.23) 0.06 (0.05 to 0.07) p<0.05ACD (Scheimpflug)

3.11 (0.24)

The mean difference (95% CI) of CCT between the methods was 13.42 (± 6.79) µm with p value <0.05. The mean difference in ACD between the methods was 0.06 (±0.072) mm with p value <0.05

Page 5: Comparison of Central Corneal Thickness and Anterior Chamber Depth Measurements between Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography and Scheimpflug Imaging

In Pearson’s correlation, the observed linear correlation between ASOCT and Scheimpflug score was r = 0.972 for CCT. The observed linear correlation between ASOCT and Scheimpflug score was r = 0.956 for ACD.

Result

Page 6: Comparison of Central Corneal Thickness and Anterior Chamber Depth Measurements between Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography and Scheimpflug Imaging

In Bland –Altman analysis, Approximately 105/108 (95%) ASOCT-Scheimpflug differences were within the 95% CI interval for the mean difference of CCT. Approximately 106/108 (94%) ASOCT-Scheimpflug differences were within the 95% CI interval for the mean difference of the mean difference of ACD.

460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 620

5

0

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25

-30

-35

AVERAGE of CCTVisante and CCTPentacam

CC

TV

isan

te -

CC

TP

enta

cam

Mean

-13.2

-1.96 SD

-26.5

+1.96 SD0.1

2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

AVERAGE of ACDVisante and ACDPentacamA

CD

Vis

ante

- A

CD

Pen

taca

m

Mean

0.06

-1.96 SD

-0.08

+1.96 SD

0.20

Result

Page 7: Comparison of Central Corneal Thickness and Anterior Chamber Depth Measurements between Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography and Scheimpflug Imaging

Discussion

1. This study can serve as the basis of the clinical decision making in the comparison between ASOCT and Scheimpflug imaging.

2. The Central Cornea Thickness (CCT) measurement using Scheimpflug Imaging was higher by 13. 42±6.79 µm than ASOCT

3. For Anterior Chamber Depth (ACD), ASOCT provided higher measurement compared to Scheimpflug imaging by 0.06±0.072 mm. These result a statistical significant difference.

4. Both instruments had a good correlation and agreement in measuring CCT and ACD.

Page 8: Comparison of Central Corneal Thickness and Anterior Chamber Depth Measurements between Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography and Scheimpflug Imaging

References1. Al-Mezaine H. S., Al-Amro S. A., Kangave D., Sadaawy A., Wehaib T. A., Al-

Obeidan S. Comparison Between Central Corneal Thickness Measurements by Oculus Pentacam and Ultrasonic Pachymetry. Int Ophthalmol 2007.

2. Barkana Y. Gerber Y. Elbaz U., Schwartz S., Ken-Dror G., Avni I., Zadok D. Central Corneal Thickness Measurement with the Pentacam Scheimpflug System, Optical Low Coherence Reflectometry Pachymetry and Ultrasound pahcymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005; 31: 1729-1735.

3. Buehl, W., Stojanac, D., Sacu, S., Drexler, W., & Findl, O. (2006).Comparison of three methods of measuring corneal thickness and anterior chamber depth. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 141, 1.

4. Meinhardt, B., Stachs, O., Stave, J., Beck, R., & Guthoff, R. (2006). Evaluation of biometric methods for measuring the anterior chamber depth in the non-contact mode. Graefe’s Arch Clinical Experimental Ophthalmology, 244, 559-564.

5. Wolffsohn, J. S., & Peterson, R. C. (2006). Anterior ophthalmic imaging. Clinical and Experimental Optometry, 89, 4, 205-214.

6. Wolffsohn, J. S., & Davies, L. N. (2007). Advances in anterior segment imaging. Current Opinion in ophthalmology, 18, 32-38.


Top Related