IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0228567.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of corneal thickness in patients with dry eye disease using the Pentacam rotating Scheimpflug camera and anterior segment optical coherence tomography

Author

Listed:
  • Keiichi Fujimoto
  • Takenori Inomata
  • Yuichi Okumura
  • Nanami Iwata
  • Kenta Fujio
  • Atsuko Eguchi
  • Ken Nagino
  • Hurramhon Shokirova
  • Maria Karasawa
  • Akira Murakami

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare central corneal thickness, thinnest corneal thickness, and the thinnest point of the cornea between Pentacam and anterior segment optical coherence tomography (ASOCT) in patients with dry eye disease (DED). This cross-sectional study included 195 participants between November 2015–June 2017. DED was diagnosed using the Asia Dry Eye Society criteria and further divided into mild and severe DED based on kerato-conjunctival vital staining. Central corneal thickness, thinnest corneal thickness, and the thinnest point of the cornea measured by Pentacam and ASOCT were compared, and Pearson’s correlation coefficients were estimated. The differences in central corneal thickness and the thinnest corneal thickness between Pentacam and ASOCT were analysed using Bland–Altman and multivariate regression analyses adjusted for age and sex. This study included 70 non-DED subjects and 52 patients with mild and 73 with severe DED. The Pentacam and ASOCT measurements of central corneal thickness and thinnest corneal thickness were strongly correlated, but the respective values were higher when measured with Pentacam. The Bland–Altman analysis revealed differences in central corneal thickness (non DED, 11.8; mild DED, 13.2; severe DED, 19.6) and in thinnest corneal thickness (non DED, 13.1; mild DED, 13.4; severe DED, 20.7). After adjusting for age and sex, the differences in central corneal thickness (β = 7.029 μm, 95%CI 2.528–11.530) and thinnest corneal thickness (β = 6.958 μm, 95%CI 0.037–13.879) were significantly increased in the severe-DED group. The distribution of the thinnest point of the cornea in the cornea’s inferior temporal quadrant between Pentacam and ASOCT deviated in severe DED (Pentacam: 90.4% vs. ASOCT: 83.6%). Clinicians should consider that there were significant differences in corneal-morphology assessment between the measurements with Pentacam and ASOCT in severe DED.

Suggested Citation

  • Keiichi Fujimoto & Takenori Inomata & Yuichi Okumura & Nanami Iwata & Kenta Fujio & Atsuko Eguchi & Ken Nagino & Hurramhon Shokirova & Maria Karasawa & Akira Murakami, 2020. "Comparison of corneal thickness in patients with dry eye disease using the Pentacam rotating Scheimpflug camera and anterior segment optical coherence tomography," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-12, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0228567
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228567
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0228567
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0228567&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0228567?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0228567. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.