7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements obtained by community optometrists to those obtained in secondary care

      , , , , ,
      Eye
      Springer Nature

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="d389195e173"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d389195e174">Purpose</h5> <p id="Par1">Corneal central thickness (CCT) is an important risk factor for glaucoma, which also influences intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements. Recently, all community optometrists in Scotland were provided with pachymeters. This study examined the accuracy of CCT measured by community optometrists compared to measurements in the glaucoma clinic. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="d389195e178"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d389195e179">Methods</h5> <p id="Par2">A retrospective analysis of consecutive patients referred to the glaucoma clinic at a university hospital between June and November 2016. 142 of 715 (19.9%) patients had CCT measurements included in the referral, all of whom had repeat measurements in the glaucoma clinic. CCT was measured using the PachPen (Accutome Inc) which generates a CCT reading by automatically taking the average of up to 9 measurements. Measurements were compared using Bland-Altman analysis. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="d389195e183"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d389195e184">Results</h5> <p id="Par3">CCT measured by community optometrists was slightly thicker than CCT in the glaucoma clinic (558.3 ± 41.5 vs. 552.6 ± 58.8 µm, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001), however the mean difference was only 13.8 ± 18.0 µm. In 223 of 284 eyes (78.5%), CCT measurements taken by community optometrists were within 20 µm of those obtained in the glaucoma clinic. 61 of 284 (21.5%) differed by &gt;20 µm, 40 (14.1%) by &gt;30 µm and 17 (6.0%) by &gt;50 µm. There was no significant relationship between difference in CCT and IOP (−0.02, 95% CI −0.05 to 0.002, <i>P</i> = 0.077), gender (0.00, 95%CI −0.01 to 0.01, <i>P</i> = 0.805), or age (−0.01, 95% CI −0.08 to 0.06, <i>P</i> = 0.791). </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="d389195e200"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d389195e201">Conclusions</h5> <p id="Par4">There was good overall agreement between CCT measured by community optometrists and measurements obtained in the glaucoma clinic. The tendency for thicker CCT measurements by community optometrists may be due to more peripheral or non-perpendicular positioning of the pachymeter relative to the cornea. </p> </div>

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Causes of blind and partial sight certifications in England and Wales: April 2007-March 2008.

          The last complete report on causes of blindness in England and Wales was for the data collected during April 1999-March 2000. This study updates these figures, with data collected during April 2007-March 2008. In England and Wales, registration for blindness and partial sight is initiated with certification by a consultant ophthalmologist with the consent of the patient. The main cause of visual impairment was ascertained where possible for all certificates completed during April 2007-March 2008 and a proportional comparison with 1999-2000 figures was made. We received 23,185 Certificates of Vision Impairment (CVIs), of which 9823 were for severe sight impairment (blindness) (SSI) and 12,607 were for sight impairment (partial sight) (SI). These totals were considerably lower than the numbers certified in the year ending 31 March 2000. In 16.6% of CVIs, there were multiple causes of visual impairment as compared with 3% of BD8s in 2000. Degeneration of the macula and posterior pole (mostly age-related macular degeneration (AMD)) contributed to vision impairment in 12,746 newly certified blind or partially sighted. AMD is still by far the leading cause of certified visual loss in England and Wales. Proportional comparisons are hampered by the increasing use of multiple pathology as a main cause of visual impairment, which is believed to have arisen owing to the change in certificate used for data collection. These figures are not estimates of the total numbers newly blind in the UK because not all those entitled to certification are offered and or accept it, but they do nevertheless document the number of people who are deemed to be sufficiently sight impaired to warrant support and have been both offered and accepted it. This is usually the case when no further ophthalmic intervention is thought likely to be of benefit in terms of restoring or improving vision.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Evaluation of corneal thickness and topography in normal eyes using the Orbscan corneal topography system.

            To map the thickness, elevation (anterior and posterior corneal surface), and axial curvature of the cornea in normal eyes with the Orbscan corneal topography system. 94 eyes of 51 normal subjects were investigated using the Orbscan corneal topography system. The anterior and posterior corneal elevation maps were classified into regular ridge, irregular ridge, incomplete ridge, island, and unclassified patterns, and the axial power maps were grouped into round, oval, symmetric bow tie, asymmetric bow tie, and irregular patterns. The pachymetry patterns were designated as round, oval, decentred round, and decentred oval. The thinnest point on the cornea was located at an average of 0.90 (SD 0. 51) mm from visual axis and had an average thickness of 0.55 (0.03) mm. In 69.57% of eyes, this point was located in the inferotemporal quadrant, followed by the superotemporal quadrant in 23.91%, the inferonasal quadrant in 4.35%, and the superonasal quadrant in 2.17%. Among the nine regions of the cornea evaluated (central, superotemporal, temporal, inferotemporal, inferior, inferonasal, nasal, superonasal, and superior) the central cornea had the lowest average thickness (0.56 (0.03) mm) and the superior cornea had the greatest average thickness (0.64 (0.03) mm). The mean simulated keratometry (SimK) was 44.24 (1.61)/43.31 (1.66) dioptres (D) and the mean astigmatism was 0.90 (0.41) D. Island (71.74%) was the most common elevation pattern observed in the anterior corneal surface, followed by incomplete ridge (19.57%), regular ridge (4.34%), irregular ridge (2.17%), and unclassified (2.17%). Island (32.61%) was the most common topographic pattern in the posterior corneal surface, following by regular ridge (30.43%), incomplete ridge (23. 91%), and irregular ridge (13.04%) patterns. Symmetric bow tie was the most common axial power pattern in the anterior cornea (39.13%), followed by oval (26.07%), asymmetric bow tie (23.91%), round (6. 52%), and irregular (4.53%) patterns. In the pachymetry maps, 47.83% of eyes had an oval pattern, and round, decentred oval, and decentred round were observed in 41.30%, 8.70%, and 2.18% of eyes, respectively. The information on regional corneal thickness, corneal elevation and axial corneal curvature obtained with the Orbscan corneal topography system from normal eyes provides a reference for comparison with diseased corneas. The Orbscan corneal topography system is a useful tool to evaluate both corneal topography and corneal thickness.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The repeatability of corneal thickness measures.

              To compare the repeatability of three measures of corneal thickness: Orbscan Slitscan pachymetry, ultrasound pachymetry, and optical pachymetry. Twenty normal subjects were tested on three occasions. Two occurred on the same day and the third was on a different day at approximately the same time of day as one of the first two visits. Central corneal thickness of the right eye was measured with a Haag-Streit optical pachymeter, a Humphrey Model 855 ultrasound pachymeter, and the Orbscan system. Day-to-day and same-day repeatability was assessed by calculating the difference between the values from two visits and determining the mean difference, the SD, and the 95% limits of agreement (LoA) (LoA = mean +/- 1.96 SD). Mean (+/- SD) central corneal thickness as measured by each instrument was as follows: 539 +/- 33 microm for optical pachymetry, 542 +/- 33 microm for ultrasound pachymetry, and 596 +/- 40 microm for Orbscan pachymetry. For day-to-day comparisons, optical pachymetry showed the poorest repeatability with 95% LoA of -61 to +32 microm. Ultrasound pachymetry showed better repeatability with 95% LoA of -22 to +24 microm. The Orbscan showed the best repeatability centrally with 95% LoA of -10 to +17 microm. Peripheral Orbscan pachymetry was less repeatable than that measured centrally but still more repeatable than central optical pachymetry. Similar results were found with same-day comparisons. The Orbscan system is the most repeatable technique for measuring corneal thickness but shows a significant bias toward greater corneal thickness measures than both ultrasound and optical pachymetry.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Eye
                Eye
                Springer Nature
                0950-222X
                1476-5454
                July 23 2018
                Article
                10.1038/s41433-018-0169-1
                6224573
                30038312
                bf5b9fd6-9cab-4365-8f16-0e4c9ba9a016
                © 2018

                http://www.springer.com/tdm

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article