Repeatability and Agreement in Measuring Adolescents and Children’s Corneal thickness with Corvis st and ss-1000 swept-source Optical Coherence tomography
Yan Lian,Yali Xu,Xueli Shao,Jun Jiang,Xinjie Mao,Wanqing Jin
Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, Optometry School of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou325027, China
Objective: To assess the repeatability of central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements in adolescents and children using the Corvis ST and to examine the agreement between Corvis ST and SS-1000 swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-1000 OCT). Methods: In this case series study, 44 children who visited the Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, from January to April of 2015 were enrolled. The age range was between 8 to 14 years old. The subjects were myopic without any other disease. CCT measurements were obtained first with the Corvis ST and then with SS-1000 OCT. The data of the right eyes was analyzed. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman plots and repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to assess the repeatability of the Corvis ST. Paired t-tests and Bland-Altman plots were used to compare the agreement between the two devices. Results: The mean ICC of the Corvis ST was 0.987. Bland-Altman plots showed agreement between any two of three measurements (95% limits of agreement was -15.6~16.2 μm, -15.7~13.4 μm, -16.0~13.1 μm, respectively). No statistical significance was found with repeated-measures ANOVA. The mean values of CCT acquired from Corvis ST and SS-1000 OCT were 553±29 μm and 540±28 μm. CCT measured by the Corvis ST was 13 μm thicker than that by SS-1000 OCT (t=-6.037, P<0.001). The 95% limits of agreement were -15.2~41.6 μm for these two devices. Conclusions: The Corvis ST shows excellent repeatability of CCT measurements in healthy children’s eyes. Though there is a good agreement between the two devices for CCT measurements,there are significant differences between them. The measurements acquired by Corvis ST should not be directly interchangeable with SS-1000 OCT measurements in clinical practice.
连燕,许雅利,邵雪丽,姜珺,毛欣杰,金婉卿. 可视化角膜生物力学分析仪测量青少年儿童中央角膜厚度的重复性及与扫频光源OCT的一致性分析[J]. 中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志, 2018, 20(12): 713-718.
Yan Lian,Yali Xu,Xueli Shao,Jun Jiang,Xinjie Mao,Wanqing Jin. Repeatability and Agreement in Measuring Adolescents and Children’s Corneal thickness with Corvis st and ss-1000 swept-source Optical Coherence tomography. Chinese Journal of Optometry Ophthalmology and Visual science, 2018, 20(12): 713-718. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-845X.2018.12.003
Bradfield YS, Melia BM, Repka MX, et al. Central corneal thickness in children. Arch Ophthalmol, 2011, 129(9): 1132-1138. DOI: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2011.225.
[2]
Muir KW, Jin J, Freedman SF. Central corneal thickness and its relationship to intraocular pressure in children. Ophthalmology,2004, 111(12): 2220-2223. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.06.020.
[3]
Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Tosoni C, et al. Corneal deformation parameters provided by the corvis-st pachy-tonometer in healthy subjects and glaucoma patients. J Glaucoma, 2015, 24(8): 568-574. DOI: 10.1097/ijg.0000000000000133.
Huang J, Feng Y, Wang Q, et al. Assessment of corneal thickness measurement using swept-source Fourier-domain anterior segment optical coherence tomography and Scheimpflug camera. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2012, 38(7): 1305-1306. DOI:10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.05.004.
[6]
Qiu K, Lu X, Zhang R, et al. Corneal biomechanics determination in healthy myopic subjects. J Ophthalmol, 2016,2016: 2793516. DOI: 10.1155/2016/2793516.
[7]
Wang W, He M, He H, et al. Corneal biomechanical metrics of healthy Chinese adults using Corvis ST. Cont Lens Anterior Eye, 2017, 40(2): 97-103. DOI: 10.1016/j.clae.2016.12.003.
[8]
Shen M, Wang J, Qu J, et al. Diurnal variation of ocular hysteresis, corneal thickness, and intraocular pressure. Optom Vis Sci, 2008, 85(12): 1185-1192. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.
20
15.10.007.
[22]
Lanza M, Iaccarino S, Bifani M. In vivo human corneal deformation analysis with a Scheimpflug camera, a critical review. J Biophotonics, 2016, 9(5): 464-477. DOI: 10.1002/
[19]
Neri A, Ruggeri M, Protti A, et al. Dynamic imaging of accommodation by swept-source anterior segment optical coherence tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2015, 41(3):
50
1-510. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.09.034.
[20]
Nakagawa T, Maeda N, Higashiura R, et al. Corneal topographic analysis in patients with keratoconus using 3-dimensional anterior segment optical coherence tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2011, 37(10): 1871-1878. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.05.027.
Read SA, Collins MJ. Diurnal variation of corneal shape and thickness. Optom Vis Sci, 2009, 86(3): 170-180. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181981b7e.
jbio.201500233.
[23]
Yu A, Zhao W, Savini G, et al. Evaluation of central corneal thickness using corneal dynamic scheimpflug analyzer corvis st and comparison with pentacam rotating scheimpflug system and ultrasound pachymetry in normal eyes. J Ophthalmol, 2015,2015(5): 1-8. DOI: 10.1155/2015/767012.
20
15.10.007.
[22]
Lanza M, Iaccarino S, Bifani M. In vivo human corneal deformation analysis with a Scheimpflug camera, a critical review. J Biophotonics, 2016, 9(5): 464-477. DOI: 10.1002/
[10]
Mantha S, Roizen MF, Fleisher LA, et al. Comparing methods of clinical measurement: Reporting standards for bland and altman analysis. Anesth Analg, 2000, 90(3): 593-602.
[11]
Giavarina D. Understanding Bland Altman analysis. Biochem Med (Zagreb), 2015, 25(2): 141-151. DOI: 10.11613/BM.2015.015.
[12]
Jhanji V, Yang B, Yu M, et al. Corneal thickness and elevation measurements using swept-source optical coherence tomography and slit scanning topography in normal and keratoconic eyes.Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 2013, 41(8): 735-745. DOI: 10.1111/ceo.12113.
[13]
Hikoya A, Sato M, Tsuzuki K, et al. Central corneal thickness in Japanese children. Jpn J Ophthalmol, 2009, 53(1): 7-11. DOI:10.1007/s10384-008-0619-6.
Yu A, Zhao W, Savini G, et al. Evaluation of central corneal thickness using corneal dynamic scheimpflug analyzer corvis st and comparison with pentacam rotating scheimpflug system and ultrasound pachymetry in normal eyes. J Ophthalmol, 2015,2015(5): 1-8. DOI: 10.1155/2015/767012.
84
5X.2013.05.002.
[15]
Chen X, Stojanovic A, Hua Y, et al. Reliability of corneal dynamic scheimpflug analyser measurements in virgin and post-PRK eyes. PLoS One, 2014, 9(10): e109577. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109577.
[16]
Nemeth G, Hassan Z, Csutak A, et al. Repeatability of ocular biomechanical data measurements with a Scheimpflug-based noncontact device on normal corneas. J Refract Surg, 2013,29(8): 558-563. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20130719-06.
[17]
Ye C, Yu M, Lai G, et al. Variability of corneal deformation response in normal and keratoconic eyes. Optom Vision Sci,2015, 92(7): e149-153. DOI: 10.1097/opx.0000000000000628.
[18]
Chen S, Huang J, Wen D, et al. Measurement of central corneal thickness by high-resolution Scheimpflug imaging,Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography and ultrasound
Neri A, Ruggeri M, Protti A, et al. Dynamic imaging of accommodation by swept-source anterior segment optical coherence tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2015, 41(3):
50
1-510. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.09.034.
[20]
Nakagawa T, Maeda N, Higashiura R, et al. Corneal topographic analysis in patients with keratoconus using 3-dimensional anterior segment optical coherence tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2011, 37(10): 1871-1878. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.05.027.
Lanza M, Iaccarino S, Bifani M. In vivo human corneal deformation analysis with a Scheimpflug camera, a critical review. J Biophotonics, 2016, 9(5): 464-477. DOI: 10.1002/
jbio.201500233.
[23]
Yu A, Zhao W, Savini G, et al. Evaluation of central corneal thickness using corneal dynamic scheimpflug analyzer corvis st and comparison with pentacam rotating scheimpflug system and ultrasound pachymetry in normal eyes. J Ophthalmol, 2015,2015(5): 1-8. DOI: 10.1155/2015/767012.
浙公网安备 33030202001892号