Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 11, 2026
In vivo Structural Assessments of Ocular Disease in Rodent Models using Optical Coherence Tomography
Published on: July 24, 2020
Comparative study of central corneal thickness measurement with slit-lamp optical coherence tomography and visante
Haitao Li1, Christopher Kai Shun Leung, Lee Wong
1Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Purpose:
To evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements obtained by 2 anterior segment optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging systems and to examine their agreements with ultrasound pachymetry.
Design:
Observational cross-sectional study.
Participants:
Fifty eyes from 50 healthy normal subjects were recruited.
Methods:
In one randomly selected eye in each subject, CCT was measured by slit-lamp OCT (SLOCT), Visante OCT, and ultrasound pachymetry. For anterior segment OCT measurements, both automatic and manual CCTs were obtained. Twenty-five of the 50 subjects were invited for 2 more visits within a week to evaluate repeatability and reproducibility of CCT measurement.
Main Outcome Measures:
Central corneal thickness measurement obtained by the 3 methods and their agreements. Intrasession and intersession within-subject standard deviation (S(w)), precision (1.96xS(w)), coefficient of variation (CV(w)) (100xS(w)/overall mean), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were calculated to evaluate repeatability and reproducibility.
Results:
Good repeatability and reproducibility were found for both automatic and manual CCT measurements obtained by SLOCT and Visante OCT. For intrasession repeatability, CV(w) and ICC values ranged between 0.9% and 1.2% and 0.96 and 0.98, respectively. For intersession reproducibility, the respective CV(w) and ICC values ranged between 1.2% and 1.4% and 0.94 and 0.96. Although no significant difference was found between automatic/manual SLOCT measurements and ultrasound pachymetry, automatic Visante OCT CCT (535.7+/-30.2 microm) was significantly less than CCT with ultrasound pachymetry (550.3+/-31.14 microm) (P<0.001). In contrast, manual Visante OCT measurement (558.8+/-32.8 microm) was slightly higher than ultrasound pachymetry (P<0.001). Nevertheless, SLOCT and Visante OCT measurement of CCT had 95% limits of agreement comparable to that of ultrasound pachymetry. The best agreement was observed in the manual SLOCT measurement (95% limits of agreement between -15.5 and 11.7 microm).
Conclusions:
Both SLOCT and Visante OCT automatic and manual CCT measurements were reliable and showed comparable agreement with ultrasound pachymetry. Although the 2 anterior segment OCT imaging systems have similar design and working principles, clinicians should be aware of the differences in CCT measurement between the 2 anterior segment OCTs.
