Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Am J Ophthalmol. 2004 Jun;137(6):1011-20.

Corneal thickness measurement by confocal microscopy, ultrasound, and scanning slit methods.

Author information

1
Department of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA. mclaren.jay@mayo.edu

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To measure corneal thickness by using a calibrated confocal microscope and to compare this measurement to thickness determined by ultrasonic and noncontact scanning slit pachymetry.

DESIGN:

Comparison of corneal thickness measured by using four instruments in normal subjects.

METHODS:

Thickness measured by a clinical confocal microscope (Tandem Scanning) was calibrated from measurements of polymethylmethacrylate contact lenses with known thickness. Corneal thickness was measured in one eye of 24 normal subjects by using this instrument, two ultrasonic pachymeters (DHG-1000 and Sonogage), and a noncontact optical scanning slit pachymeter (Orbscan II).

RESULTS:

Mean corneal thickness measured by confocal microscopy was 516 +/- 30 microm (+/-SD). This was less than the mean thickness measured by both ultrasonic pachymeters, 554 +/- 28 microm by the DGH, and 555 +/- 28 microm by the Sonogage (P <.001). Thickness measured by the Orbscan II pachymeter was 540 +/- 35 microm (P <.001, compared with either confocal or ultrasound) after applying an "acoustic factor" of 0.92, a default correction of the software.

CONCLUSION:

Corneal thickness measured by calibrated confocal microscopy is approximately 39 microm (7.0%) less than thickness measured by two commonly used ultrasonic pachymeters and approximately 24 microm (4.4%) less than thickness measured by the corrected Orbscan II pachymeter. These differences are important for planning and measuring the effects of refractive and other surgical procedures. The precision of confocal microscopy is limited by corneal motion in an anterior-posterior direction. The difference between instruments suggests that verification of clinical ultrasonic pachymeters should be revisited.

PMID:
15183784
DOI:
10.1016/j.ajo.2004.01.049
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center