Purpose: To compare central corneal thickness measurements and their reproducibility when taken by a rotating Scheimpflug camera, ultrasonic pachymetry, and scanning-slit corneal topography/pachymetry.
Design: Experimental study.
Participants: Seventy-four eyes of 64 subjects without ocular abnormalities other than cataract.
Methods: Corneal thickness measurements were compared among the 3 methods in 54 eyes of 54 subjects. Two sets of measurements were repeated by a single examiner for each pachymetry in another 10 eyes of 5 subjects, and the intraexaminer repeatability was assessed as the absolute difference of the first and second measurements. Two experienced examiners took one measurement for each pachymetry in another 10 eyes of 5 subjects, and the interexaminer reproducibility was assessed as the absolute difference of the 2 measurements of the first and second examiners.
Main Outcome Measures: Central corneal thickness measurements by the 3 methods, absolute difference of the first and second measurements by a single examiner, absolute difference of the 2 measurements by 2 examiners, and relative amount of variation.
Results: The average measurements of central corneal thickness by a rotating Scheimpflug camera, scanning-slit topography, and ultrasonic pachymetry were 538 +/- 31.3 mu m, 541 +/- 40.7 mu m, and 545 +/- 31.3 mu m, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in the measurement results among the 3 methods (P = 0.569, repeated-measures analysis of variance). There was a significant linear correlation between the rotating Scheimpflug camera and ultrasonic pachymetry (r = 0.908, P < 0.0001), rotating Scheimpflug camera and scanning-slit topography (r = 0.930, P < 0.0001), and ultrasonic pachymetry and scanning-slit topography (r = 0.887, P < 0.0001). Ultrasonic pachymetry had the smallest intraexaminer variability, and scanning-slit topography had the largest intraexaminer variability among the 3 methods. There were similar variations in interexaminer reproducibility among the 3 methods.
Conclusions: Mean corneal thicknesses were comparable among rotating Scheimpflug camera, ultrasonic pachymetry, and scanning-slit topography with the acoustic equivalent correction factor. The measurements of the 3 instruments had significant linear correlations with one another, and all methods had highly satisfactory measurement repeatability.