American Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume 145, Issue 1 , Pages 75-80.e2, January 2008

Comparison of Corneal Thickness Measurements by Ultrasound and Scheimpflug Photography in Eyes That Have Undergone Laser In Situ Keratomileusis

  • Joseph B. Ciolino

      Affiliations

    • Department of Ophthalmology, Albany Medical College, Albany, New York
    • Corresponding Author InformationInquiries to Joseph B. Ciolino, 361 State Street, Apt. 3F, Albany, NY 12210
  • ,
  • Steven S. Khachikian

      Affiliations

    • Department of Ophthalmology, Albany Medical College, Albany, New York
  • ,
  • Michael W. Belin

      Affiliations

    • Department of Ophthalmology, Albany Medical College, Albany, New York
    • Cornea Consultants of Albany, Slingerlands, New York.

Accepted 21 August 2007. published online 28 September 2007.

Purpose

To compare two methods of measuring central cornea thickness (CCT) in eyes that have undergone laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).

Design

Prospective clinical trial.

Methods

The corneal thickness from 104 eyes of 53 consecutive patients undergoing the one-year follow-up after LASIK was measured with both the Pentacam (Oculus, Inc, Wetzlar, Germany) and ultrasonic pachymetry. All patients were examined at one clinical setting, where first Pentacam imaging was performed by one technician and then ultrasound pachymetry was performed by a masked second technician. The results were compared.

Results

The average age of the patient population was 38 years (range, 22 to 56 years) of those who underwent the one-year follow-up examination an average of 406 days (range, 264 to 579 days) after LASIK. The mean CCT measurement was 506 ± 29.5 μm (range, 454 to 574 μm) with the Pentacam topographer and 505 ± 31.7 μm (range, 433 to 576 μm) with ultrasound pachymetry. The average difference (Pentacam minus ultrasound) was 1.4 ± 10.4 μm (range, −21.8 to 23.4 μm).

Conclusions

The Pentacam’s CCT measurement and that of ultrasound pachymetry show good correlation. Pentacam pachymetry may be substituted for ultrasound in the post-LASIK patient.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0002-9394(07)00771-4

doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2007.08.026

American Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume 145, Issue 1 , Pages 75-80.e2, January 2008