Gokcinar Nesrin Buyuktortop, Yumusak Erhan, Ornek Nurgul, Yorubulut Serap, Onaran Zafer
Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Kırıkkale University Hospital, Yahşihan, Kırıkkale, Turkey.
Department of Statistics, Faculty of Science and Letters, Kırıkkale University, Kırıkkale, Turkey.
Int Ophthalmol. 2019 Jul;39(7):1589-1598. doi: 10.1007/s10792-018-0983-2. Epub 2018 Jul 9.
To compare the repeatability and agreement of central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (OCT), corneal topography (CT) with a combined Scheimpflug-Placido system, optical biometry (OB), specular microscopy (SM), and ultrasound pachymetry (UP).
A single observer measured CCT twice in 150 eyes of 150 subjects with each of five devices: Nidek RS-3000 Advance OCT, CSO Sirius combined Scheimpflug-Placido disc system CT, Nidek AL-Scan partial coherence interferometry-based OB, Tomey EM-3000 SM, and Reichert iPac ultrasonic pachymeter. Pachymetry values corrected by the SM device software were also recorded. Levels of agreement between devices were evaluated by Bland-Altman plots with 95% limits of agreement, and repeatability for each device was analysed with intraclass correlation coefficients.
The mean CCTs measured by OCT, CT, OB, SM, corrected SM, and UP were 544.60 ± 29.56, 536.19 ± 32.14, 528.29 ± 29.45, 524.88 ± 32.38, 537.88 ± 32.38, and 545.29 ± 30.75 μm, respectively. Mean CCT differed significantly between the devices (p < 0.05) apart from between OCT and UP, and between CT and corrected SM. Mean paired differences between devices ranged between 0.68 and 20.41 μm. Repeatability with all devices was excellent (> 0.99). The range of limits of agreement was the least between OCT and UP.
Different CCT measurement techniques produce quite different results, so CCT evaluation and follow-up should be performed using the same device or devices with close compatibility.
比较通过频域光学相干断层扫描(OCT)、采用联合的Scheimpflug - Placido系统的角膜地形图(CT)、光学生物测量(OB)、镜面显微镜检查(SM)和超声测厚法(UP)测量中央角膜厚度(CCT)的可重复性和一致性。
一名观察者使用五种设备分别对150名受试者的150只眼睛进行两次CCT测量,这五种设备分别为:Nidek RS - 3000 Advance OCT、CSO Sirius联合Scheimpflug - Placido盘系统CT、Nidek AL - Scan基于部分相干干涉测量法的OB、Tomey EM - 3000 SM以及Reichert iPac超声测厚仪。还记录了经SM设备软件校正后的测厚值。通过具有95%一致性界限的Bland - Altman图评估设备之间的一致性水平,并使用组内相关系数分析每种设备的可重复性。
OCT、CT、OB、SM、校正后的SM和UP测量的平均CCT分别为544.60±29.56、536.19±32.14、528.29±29.45、524.88±32.38、537.88±32.38和545.29±30.75μm。除OCT与UP之间以及CT与校正后的SM之间外,各设备之间的平均CCT差异有统计学意义(p < 0.05)。设备之间的平均配对差异在0.68至20.41μm之间。所有设备的可重复性都非常好(> 0.99)。OCT与UP之间的一致性界限范围最小。
不同的CCT测量技术产生的结果差异较大,因此CCT评估和随访应使用同一设备或兼容性相近的设备进行。