Technical Note: Accuracy and repeatability of a new portable ultrasound pachymeter

• Published in: Ophthalmic & physiological optics Vol. 27; no. 2; pp. 190 - 193
• Main Authors: Queirós, A., González-Méijome, J. M., Fernandes, P., Jorge, J., Almeida, J. B., Parafita, M. A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.03.2007; Blackwell
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Biological and medical sciences; Cornea - diagnostic imaging; corneal thickness; Corneal Topography - instrumentation; Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological; Eye and associated structures. Visual pathways and centers. Vision; Female; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Humans; Male; pachymeter comparison; portable ultrasound pachymetry; Reproducibility of Results; Ultrasonography; Vertebrates: nervous system and sense organs; Thickness; Repeatability; Cornea; Accuracy; corneal thickness; Pachymetry; pachymeter comparison; portable ultrasound pachymetry; Ophthalmology; Technique; Ultrasound; Comparative study
• ISSN: 0275-5408; 1475-1313
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2006.00429.x

Purpose:  To assess the accuracy and repeatability of central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements taken with a new portable ultrasound (US) pachymeter. Methods:  Central thickness measurements were taken with a portable pachymeter (SP‐100 Handy; Tomey, Nagoya, Japan) and a conventional US pachymeter (Nidek UP‐1000; Nidek Technologies, Gamagori, Japan) from 57 right corneas of 57 young adults (19 males, 38 females) aged 18–44 years (mean ± S.D., 22.95 ± 3.92). Three repeated measures were obtained and then compared to obtain the repeatability of each instrument and the agreement between the pachymeters. The three readings taken with the portable pachymeter were compared against each other in order to evaluate intra‐session repeatability and bias of each individual measurement with respect to the mean of three. Results:  Mean values of CCT were 537 ± 35 μm for conventional and 534 ± 35 μm for the new portable pachymeter. A high agreement was found between the two instruments (mean difference = 2.58 μm; 95% CI 1.41–3.75 μm) with only two eyes presenting differences larger than ±8.6 μm which represents 95% CI in the Bland‐Altman plots which represents 1.6% of the mean CCT. The first reading taken showed the highest agreement with the mean value for the portable pachymeter. Conclusions:  The instrument tested in this study is able to take reliable measurements of corneal thickness even if a single reading is considered. Intra‐session repeatability was very high, as was also the agreement between the average of three readings taken with the two US pachymeters.