Purpose: To compare central corneal thickness (CCT) measured with optical coherence tomography (OCT) using an automatic algorithm (A-OCT) vs. manual measurements (M-OCT) with respect to the gold standard ultrasound pachymetry (USP). Methods: CCT measurements were performed on both eyes of 28 healthy subjects at four times of the day. A-OCT used an automatic software analysis of the corneal image, M-OCT was performed by two operators by setting a digital calliper on the corneal borders, and USP was performed after corneal anesthesia. Measurements were compared using a three-way repeated measures ANOVA. Bland-Altman plots were used to evaluate the agreement between OCT measurements and USP. Results: Both A-OCT and M-OCT significantly underestimated the USP measures, with the mean difference, i.e., the systematic error, being larger for A-OCT (- 19.0 µm) than for M-OCT (- 6.5 µm). Good reproducibility between the two operators was observed. Bland-Altman plots showed that both OCT methods suffered from proportional errors, which were not affected by time and eye. Conclusions: Measuring CCT with OCT yielded lower values than USP. Therefore, clinicians should be aware that corneal thickness values may be influenced by the measurement method and that the various devices should not be used interchangeably in following up a given patient. Intriguingly, M-OCT had less systematic error than A-OCT, an important outcome that clinicians should consider when deciding to use an OCT device.
Comparison of central corneal thickness measured by automatic and manual analysis of optical coherence tomography / C. Bruttini, R. Esposti, A. Pece, G. Maione, P. Cavallari. - In: GRAEFE'S ARCHIVE FOR CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPHTHALMOLOGY. - ISSN 0721-832X. - 262:6(2024 Jun), pp. 1857-1863. [10.1007/s00417-023-06354-0]
Comparison of central corneal thickness measured by automatic and manual analysis of optical coherence tomography
C. Bruttini
Primo
;R. EspostiSecondo
;P. CavallariUltimo
2024
Abstract
Purpose: To compare central corneal thickness (CCT) measured with optical coherence tomography (OCT) using an automatic algorithm (A-OCT) vs. manual measurements (M-OCT) with respect to the gold standard ultrasound pachymetry (USP). Methods: CCT measurements were performed on both eyes of 28 healthy subjects at four times of the day. A-OCT used an automatic software analysis of the corneal image, M-OCT was performed by two operators by setting a digital calliper on the corneal borders, and USP was performed after corneal anesthesia. Measurements were compared using a three-way repeated measures ANOVA. Bland-Altman plots were used to evaluate the agreement between OCT measurements and USP. Results: Both A-OCT and M-OCT significantly underestimated the USP measures, with the mean difference, i.e., the systematic error, being larger for A-OCT (- 19.0 µm) than for M-OCT (- 6.5 µm). Good reproducibility between the two operators was observed. Bland-Altman plots showed that both OCT methods suffered from proportional errors, which were not affected by time and eye. Conclusions: Measuring CCT with OCT yielded lower values than USP. Therefore, clinicians should be aware that corneal thickness values may be influenced by the measurement method and that the various devices should not be used interchangeably in following up a given patient. Intriguingly, M-OCT had less systematic error than A-OCT, an important outcome that clinicians should consider when deciding to use an OCT device.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Cornea OCTvsUPS published.pdf
accesso riservato
Descrizione: Versione pubblicata, online first
Tipologia:
Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione
957.9 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
957.9 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
Cornea OCTvsUPS AcceptedMS.pdf
Open Access dal 12/01/2025
Tipologia:
Post-print, accepted manuscript ecc. (versione accettata dall'editore)
Dimensione
1.07 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
1.07 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
s00417-023-06354-0.pdf
accesso riservato
Tipologia:
Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione
939.89 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
939.89 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.