Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Revista Brasileira d...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
addClaim

Comparação entre as medidas da espessura central corneana usando a paquimetria óptica e a ultra-sônica Comparison between the measurements of central corneal thickness using optic and ultrasonic pachymeters

Authors: Aline Leonel Maimone; Nelson Maimone; Robson Marcelo Rossi;

Comparação entre as medidas da espessura central corneana usando a paquimetria óptica e a ultra-sônica Comparison between the measurements of central corneal thickness using optic and ultrasonic pachymeters

Abstract

OBJETIVOS: Comparar a medida da espessura corneana central (ECC) obtida pelo paquímetro óptico Haag-Streit e a paquimetria ultrassônica DGH 500 (PachetteTM). MÉTODOS: Foram avaliados, 200 olhos de 100 pacientes utilizando-se o paquímetro óptico (PO) e o ultrassônico (PU). As medidas foram realizadas na área central da córnea, respeitando a área dos 3 mm, em pacientes com córneas normais, em olhos hipermétropes, emétropes e míopes, excluindo doenças oculares, usuários de lentes de contato ou submetidos às cirurgias. RESULTADOS: A média geral da ECC medida pelo PO foi 603,8± 32,6µm, e 568,2±40,5 µm pelo PU. As comparações entre as medidas dos dois aparelhos foram realizadas ao nível de 5% de significância e a diferença entre os dois aparelhos foi 35,7±26,4 µm (p=0,0000), indicando diferença significativa entre os métodos utilizados. Não houve diferença estatística entre olhos hipermétropes, emétropes e míopes usando o PU. CONCLUSÃO: A medida da ECC é superestimada pelo PO quando comparada com o PU.PURPOSE: To compare measurements of central corneal thickness obtained using a Haag-Streit optic pachymeter and a DGH 500 (Pachette Ttm ) ultrasonic pachymeter in normal patients. METHODS: An evaluation was made of 200 eyes of 100 patients using Optic (PO) and Ultrasonic (PU) pachymeters. Measurements were made in the area of the central cornea (ECC) respecting the 3.0 mm territory, in patients with normal corneas of hypermetropic, emetropic and myopic eyes. Patients with ocular diseases, ocular surgeries, and contact lens wearers, were excluded. A statistical analysis was performed using a Paired Student's t test to compare measurements between instruments at the 5% level of significance. RESULTS: The mean thickness of the ECC measured by the PO was 603.8±32.6µm and by the PU, 568.2±40.5µm. The difference between the two instruments was 35.7±26.4µm. Applying the t test with p = <5%, the difference was significant. We had no statistical difference in ECC between hypermetropic, emetropic and myopic eyes using the PU. CONCLUSION: The measurement of ECC is an over-estimate using the PO as compared with the PU.

Keywords

Ultrassonografia, Glaucoma, RE1-994, Técnicas, medidas e equipamentos de medição, Córnea, Cornea, Ophthalmology, Techniques, measures, measurement equipment, Topografia da córnea, Corneal topography, Ultrasonography

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
gold