COMPARISON OF MEAN CENTRAL CORNEAL THICKNESS MEASUREMENTS USING ULTRASOUND PACHYMETRY AND SPECTRAL-DOMAIN OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHY IN PATIENTS WITH GLAUCOMA
Main Article Content
Keywords
Glaucoma, Optical Coherence Tomography, Central Corneal Thickness
Abstract
Background: The optic nerve damage with the ultimate loss of vision resulting from a clutch of diseases named Glaucoma. In many conditions including, corneal dystrophies, corneal edema, and endothelial diseases of the cornea, the important biometric is Central corneal thickness (CCT).
Objective: To compare the mean central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements obtained using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) and ultrasound pachymetry in patients presenting with glaucoma.
Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted at Quaid e Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur and Bahawal Victoria Hospital, Bahawalpur from January, 2025 to June, 2025. A total of 180 patients diagnosed with or presenting with glaucoma were enrolled in the study. Central corneal thickness was measured in all participants using both SD-OCT and ultrasound pachymetry techniques. The collected data were electronically recorded and subsequently analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 20.0.
Results: 40.00±11.50 years was the average age of all the patients. There were 89(49.44%) males and 91(50.56%) females. The mean CCT was 531.01±28.54µm on OCT and 530.01±29.74µm on USP. The mean difference in CCT was 3.93±3.13µm between OCT & USP. The difference was statistically insignificant (p<0.05).
Conclusion: There is a statistically insignificant difference between the mean CCT with USP and spectral domain OCT patients presenting with Glaucoma.
References
2.Schmoll T, Unterhuber A, Kolbitsch C, Le T, Stingl A, Leitgeb R. Precise Thickness Measurements of Bowman's Layer, Epithelium, and Tear Film [Internet]. 2012. Available from: www.optvissci.com
3.Akyol-Salman I, Azizi S, Mumcu U, Öndaş O, Baykal O. Central corneal thickness in patients with meibomian gland dysfunction. Clinical and Experimental Optometry. 2011 Sep;94(5):464–7.
4.Kopplin LJ, Przepyszny K, Schmotzer B, Rudo K, Babineau DC, Patel S v, et al. Relationship of Fuchs Endothelial Corneal Dystrophy Severity to Central Corneal Thickness [Internet]. Vol. 130, Arch Ophthalmol. 2012. Available from: http://archopht.jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/ophth/23385/
5.Hayashi K, Yoshida M, Manabe SI, Hirata A. Cataract surgery in eyes with low corneal endothelial cell density. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2011 Aug;37(8):1419–25.
6.Michelessi M, Lucenteforte E, Oddone F, Brazzelli M, Parravano M, Franchi S, et al. Optic nerve head and fibre layer imaging for diagnosing glaucoma. Vol. 2015, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. John Wiley and Sons Ltd; 2015.
7.Lin CW, Wang TH, Huang YH, Huang JY. Agreement and repeatability of central corneal thickness measurements made by ultrasound pachymetry and anterior segmentoptical coherence tomography. Taiwan Journal of Ophthalmology. 2013 Sep;3(3):98–102.
8.Garcia-Medina JJ, Garcia-Medina M, Garcia-Maturana C, Zanon-Moreno V, Pons-Vazquez S, Pinazo-Duran MD. Comparative Study of Central Corneal Thickness Using Fourier-Domain Optical Coherence Tomography Versus Ultrasound Pachymetry in Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma [Internet]. 2012. Available from: www.corneajrnl.com
9.Fogagnolo P, Rossetti L, Mazzolani F, Orzalesi N. Circadian variations in central corneal thickness and intraocular pressure in patients with Glaucoma. British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2006 Jan;90(1):24–8.
10.Larsson L-I, Rettig ES, Brubaker RF. Aqueous Flow in Open-angle Glaucoma [Internet]. Available from: http://archopht.jamanetwork.com/
11.Patwardhan AA, Khan M, Mollan SP, Haigh P. The importance of central corneal thickness measurements and decision making in general ophthalmology clinics: A masked observational study. BMC Ophthalmology. 2008;8.
12.Ramesh PV, Jha KN, Srikanth K. Comparison of central corneal thickness using anterior segment optical coherence tomography versus ultrasound pachymetry. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2017 Aug 1;11(8):NC08-NC11.

