Home
Online Advanced Release
Current Issue
Online-only Articles
Back Issues
Product News
About the Journal
Advertising Info
Contact Us
Article Reprints
Article Submission
Buy a Book
Terms and Conditions
Careers at SLACK Inc.
ISIE
 
  e-contents - sign up today
  Subscribe to this Journal
Get daily Ophthalmic news at the OSN SuperSite

Schuman, Everyday OCT

Clinical Science

Assessment and Comparison of Anterior Chamber Dimensions Using Various Imaging Techniques

Ophthalmic Surgery, Lasers and Imaging   Vol. 41   No. 1   January/February 2010
See the Full text
Umut Asli Dinc, MD, FEBO; Banu Oncel, MD; Ebru Gorgun, MD; Melda Nursal Yenerel, MD and Levent Alimgil, MD

Share/Save/Bookmark

 

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To assess and compare the horizontal dimensions of the anterior chamber by different anterior segment imaging techniques.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eighty eyes of 40 patients without any ocular disease or previous ocular surgery were recruited and three consecutive measurements of internal anterior chamber diameter and white-to-white distance (WTW) parameters were determined.

RESULTS

Mean internal anterior chamber diameter was 11.80 ± 0.39, 11.56 ± 0.47, and 11.61 ± 0.58 mm with Visante-OCT, SL-OCT, and Pentacam, respectively. Mean WTW distance was 11.87 ± 0.35 and 11.65 ± 0.32 mm by IOLMaster and OrbscanIIz, respectively. There was no significant difference between Visante-OCT and Pentacam, IOLMaster, and OrbscanIIz (P = .125, .918, and .314). However, detection of mean internal anterior chamber diameter was significantly greater by Visante-OCT than SL-OCT (P = .026). All devices displayed a high intrasession repeatability (repeated measured ANOVA, P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Internal anterior chamber diameter measurements using Visante-OCT, SL-OCT, and Pentacam, and WTW measurements using IOLMaster and OrbscanIIz were easy to handle and demonstrated good repeatability. Although similar results of horizontal anterior chamber diameter were determined by Visante-OCT, Pentacam, IOLMaster, and OrbscanIIz, the inter-device differences should be considered during clinical practice.

[Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging 2010;41:115-122.]

AUTHORS

From Yeditepe University Eye Hospital, Ophthalmology Department, Istanbul, Turkey.

Accepted for publication March 19, 2009.

The authors have no financial or proprietary interest in the materials presented herein.

Address correspondence to Umut Asli Dinc, MD, FEBO, Yeditepe University Eye Hospital, Sakir Kesebir Sokak No:28 Balmumcu, Besiktas, 34349 Istanbul, Turkey.

doi: 10.3928/15428877-20091230-21

See the Full text