Objective: To compare corneal thickness (CT) measurements using the CEM-530 (Nidal, Gamagori, Japan) and Pentacam HR (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany). Methods: The CT of 209 healthy subjects (209 right eyes) aged 24 to 89 years (71.35 10.72 years) was measured at the corneal apex (CA), pupil center (PC), and thinnest point (TP) with the Pentacam HR and at the corneal center with the CEM-530 in random order at the same time of day. Results: A good correlation but statistically significant difference was found between the CEM-530 and Pentacam HR measurements at the CA (6.10 8.12 mm, R2¼ 0.8947), PC (7.46 8.57 mm, R2 ¼ 0.8826), and TP (12.44 10.04 mm, R2 ¼ 0.8392). Comparison of the two devices produced the following regression formulas: y ¼ 0.8859x þ 57.644 for the CA, y ¼ 0.8852x þ 56.657 for the PC, and y ¼ 0.8557x þ 68.148 for the TP, where x is the CT obtained with the CEM-530 and y is that obtained with the Pentacam HR. Conclusions: These findings indicate that the CEM-530 produces a thicker corneal measurement than the Pentacam HR. The herein-proposed correcting factors are needed to reliably compare these devices.
Measurement of corneal thickness using Pentacam HR versus Nidek CEM-530 specular microscopy
De Bernardo, Maddalena;Marotta, Giuseppe;Salerno, Giulio;De Pascale, Ilaria;Rosa, Nicola
2019-01-01
Abstract
Objective: To compare corneal thickness (CT) measurements using the CEM-530 (Nidal, Gamagori, Japan) and Pentacam HR (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany). Methods: The CT of 209 healthy subjects (209 right eyes) aged 24 to 89 years (71.35 10.72 years) was measured at the corneal apex (CA), pupil center (PC), and thinnest point (TP) with the Pentacam HR and at the corneal center with the CEM-530 in random order at the same time of day. Results: A good correlation but statistically significant difference was found between the CEM-530 and Pentacam HR measurements at the CA (6.10 8.12 mm, R2¼ 0.8947), PC (7.46 8.57 mm, R2 ¼ 0.8826), and TP (12.44 10.04 mm, R2 ¼ 0.8392). Comparison of the two devices produced the following regression formulas: y ¼ 0.8859x þ 57.644 for the CA, y ¼ 0.8852x þ 56.657 for the PC, and y ¼ 0.8557x þ 68.148 for the TP, where x is the CT obtained with the CEM-530 and y is that obtained with the Pentacam HR. Conclusions: These findings indicate that the CEM-530 produces a thicker corneal measurement than the Pentacam HR. The herein-proposed correcting factors are needed to reliably compare these devices.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
