Anterior chamber depth measurement: A-scan versus optical methods

Koranyi, Gabor; Lydahl, Eva; Norrby, Sverker; Taube, Mikaela

doi:10.1016/s0886-3350(01)01039-2

Cited by 80 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Orbscan devices have also previously been shown to provide accurate and reproducible results of ocular structures when compared to ultrasound, optical pachymetry, Scheimpflug imaging and the IOLMaster [22,[34][35][36][37][38][39]. Measurements of anterior chamber angles with the Orbscan have been found not to be affected by refractive status [40], which is in line with the results of this study since all estimations of anterior chamber angle were possible in all subjects with KC.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Evaluation of the anterior chamber angle in keratoconus and normal subjects

Nilsson

Miller

Cerviño

et al. 2015

Contact Lens and Anterior Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Evaluation of the anterior chamber angle in keratoconus and normal subjects

Nilsson

Miller

Cerviño

et al. 2015

Contact Lens and Anterior Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Examiner (reference) ACD (mm) Kriechbaum et al (2003) 2.87 Ne´meth et al (2003) 2.91 ± 0.50 Reddy et al (2004) 2.87 ± 0.55 Wong et al (2003) 2.89 Koranyi et al (2002) 3.05 ± 0.36 Auffarth et al (1997) 3.27 ± 0.57 Table 4. Axial length (AL) using contact ultrasound biometry, as reported in the literature.…”

Section: Referencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The comparative study of two recently developed A‐scan devices: determination of central corneal thickness, anterior chamber depth and axial length

Sohajda

Papp

Berta

et al. 2008

Acta Ophthalmologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. Purpose: The clinical use and comparison of two recently developed A‐scan ultrasound devices. Methods: The same investigator determined central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD) and axial length (AL) with an OcuScan RxP (Alcon, Forth Worth, Texas, USA) and an AL‐2000 (Tomey, Erlangen, Germany) ultrasound device in 80 eyes of 40 patients. The mean patient age was 63.72 years [standard deviation (SD) 18.92]. The patients did not suffer from any systemic or eye disease affecting the anterior and posterior segments of the eye, and their refractive error (spherical and astigmatic) did not exceed ± 3.0 dioptres. Results: The value of the CCT was 541.55 (SD 34.97) µm with the OcuScan RxP, and 547.46 (SD 35.70) µm with the AL‐2000 device (P < 0.001). With respect to the ACD and AL, significantly lower values were obtained with the AL‐2000 instrument (P < 0.001). The ACD was 2.92 (SD 0.48) mm with the AL‐2000 and 3.07 (SD 0.47) mm with the OcuScan RxP device. The AL was 22.67 (SD 0.84) mm with the AL‐2000 and 22.81 (SD 0.87) mm with the OcuScan RxP instrument. However, a positive and significant correlation could be demonstrated between the devices (r = 0.88 CCT, r = 0.86 ACD and r = 0.91 AL; P < 0.001). Conclusion: The instruments are reliable in clinical use; however, statistically significant differences were found between the devices. During patient follow‐up, the devices cannot simply be used interchangeably.

show abstract

“…The instrument provides information about the cornea, iris, lens, anterior chamber angle, and ACD. Orbscan devices have been shown to provide accurate and reproducible results when compared to ultrasound [14][15][16][17], optical pachymetry [14,15], Scheimpflug imaging [7,13,15,18], and the IOLMaster [16][17][18][19]. Measurements of ACD are not affected by refractive status [20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%