Central corneal thickness measurement with a retinal optical coherence tomography device versus standard ultrasonic pachymetry
Central corneal thickness measurement with a retinal optical coherence tomography device versus standard ultrasonic pachymetry
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/00003226-200101000-00010
复制
发表时间：
2001-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
Ulbig, MW
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bechmann, M;Thiel, MJ;Ulbig, MW
目的。演示标准市售光学相干断层扫描设备（最初设计用于测量视网膜厚度）对人角膜体内成像以及测量正常角膜和水肿角膜的中央角膜厚度（CCT）的能力。将这种新颖应用的患者内精度和患者间变异性与标准超声厚度测量进行了比较。此外，还研究了两种方法的相关性。方法。使用光学相干断层扫描 (OCT) 和超声测厚仪 (PACH) 对 36 只正常眼睛和 16 只患有角膜水肿的眼睛进行 CCT 测量。结果。可以在所有眼睛中进行角膜的直接体内成像和 OCT 的 CCT 测量。在正常受试者中，CCTOCT 为 530 +/- 32 mum，CCTPACH 为 581 +/- 34 mum。两种方法显示出高度显着的相关性，标准化回归系数为0.988。两种方法之间的差异在 CCT 范围内保持不变（平均差异为 49.4 +/- 5.9 mum）。 OCT 和 PACH 的 CCT 测量的患者内平均 SD 分别为 4.90 mum 和 4.96 mum。在角膜水肿患者中，平均 CCTOCT 为 601 +/- 59 mm，平均 CCTPACH 为 667 +/- 68 mm。随着角膜水肿的增加，两种技术之间的差异略有增加（平均差异为 66.9 +/- 10.9 mum）。结论。人类角膜的成像可以通过标准视网膜 OCT 设备进行，并且 CCT 的 OCT 测量与 PACH 获得的值显示出极好的相关性，给出由恒定差异分隔的相似读数。在角膜水肿方面，两种方法之间的差异进一步增加，但仍然表现出出色的一致性。
Purpose. To demonstrate the capability of a standard, commercially available optical coherence tomography device (originally designed to measure retinal thickness) to image the human cornea in vivo and to measure central corneal thickness (CCT) in normal and edematous corneas. The intrapatient precision and interpatient variability of this novel application was compared to standard ultrasonic pachymetry. Also, the correlation of both methods was investigated. Methods. CCT measurements using optical coherence tomography (OCT) and ultrasonic pachymetry (PACH) were obtained in 36 normal eyes and 16 eyes with corneal edema. Results. Direct in vivo imaging of the cornea and measurements of CCT by OCT could be performed in all eyes. In normal subjects, CCTOCT was 530 +/- 32 mum and CCTPACH was 581 +/- 34 mum. The two methods showed a highly significant correlation with a standardized regression coefficient of 0.988. The difference between both methods was constant over the range of CCT (mean difference, 49.4 +/- 5.9 mum) The mean intrapatient SD of CCT measurements was 4.90 mum and 4.96 mum for OCT and PACH, respectively. In patients with corneal edema, mean CCTOCT was 601 +/- 59 mum, and mean CCTPACH was 667 +/- 68 mum. The difference between the two techniques increased slightly with increasing corneal edema (mean difference, 66.9 +/- 10.9 mum). Conclusion. Imaging of the human cornea can be performed by a standard retinal OCT device, and OCT measurement of CCT shows excellent correlation to values obtained by PACH, giving similar readings separated by a constant difference. In corneal edema, the difference between the two methods is additionally increased, but continues to demonstrate excellent consistency.