Ultrasound Research - Screening, Diagnosis, Pregnancy, Detection

Ultrasound Research Today is a free monthly online journal that collates and summarizes the latest research about Ultrasound, including details on screening, diagnosis, pregnancy, detection.


Ultrasound Research Today

Home

View Latest Issue

Information About Ultrasound

Books on Ultrasound

Advertising in Research Today

View Other Research Today Publications



Central corneal thickness: z-ring corneal confocal microscopy versus ultrasound pachymetry.

Brugin E, Ghirlando A, Gambato C, Midena E

Department of Ophthalmology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.

PURPOSE: To compare the repeatability and validity of corneal pachymetry by a corneal confocal microscope with a z-axis adapter (Confoscan 4.0 with z-ring adapter: z-CS4) versus ultrasound (US) pachymetry in the measurement of central corneal thickness (CCT). METHODS: CCT in 44 eyes of 44 subjects was determined with z-CS4. Z-CS4 exams were used to estimate the repeatability of thickness measurement by z-ring adapter for this confocal microscope. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) between two different z-CS4 users was also determined. CCT in the same 44 eyes was determined with US pachymetry and measurements were compared with z-CS4 CCT. RESULTS: Z-CS4 CCT showed high intrainstrument reproducibility (ICC = 0.989; 95%CI 0.982-0.993; P < 0.0001). Mean difference among three CCT consecutive measures, in the same eye, was 0.8 +/- 11.1 microm. High correlation was found between two users (ICC = 0.896; 95%IC 0.830-0.937; P < 0.0001). Z-CS4 CCT showed high correlation with US pachymetry (ICC = 0.921; 95%CI 0.851-0.958; P < 0.0001). Mean corneal thickness determined was statistically different with the two methods (US: 512.6 +/- 65.8 microm; z-CS4: 487.8 +/- 60.1 microm; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Z-CS4 seems an accurate, noninvasive and reproducible technique for CCT evaluation and confirms that central cornea is thinner when measured with confocal microscopy compared to ultrasounds.

Published 6 April 2007 in Cornea, 26(3): 303-7.
Full-text of this article is available online (may require subscription).

Place a permanent text-link or advertisement here for just US$15.

© 2004-2008 Ultrasound Research Today. All Rights Reserved.



Ultrasound Research Today Archive:

Volume 1 (2004)
  Issue 1 (September)
  Issue 2 (October)
  Issue 3 (November)
  Issue 4 (December)

Volume 2 (2005)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)
  Issue 9 (September)
  Issue 10 (October)
  Issue 11 (November)
  Issue 12 (December)

Volume 3 (2006)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)
  Issue 9 (September)
  Issue 10 (October)
  Issue 11 (November)
  Issue 12 (December)

Volume 4 (2007)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)
  Issue 9 (September)
  Issue 10 (October)
  Issue 11 (November)
  Issue 12 (December)

Volume 5 (2008)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)



Ultrasound Books

Radiation Protection in Medical Radiography

Radiation Protection in Medical Radiography