PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Lawrenson, John G
AU  - Gill, Simranjit
AU  - Masuid, Isra
AU  - Rashid, Fardip
TI  - Repeatability and agreement of central corneal thickness measurements with a new handheld non-contact pachymeter
AID  - 10.1101/2023.04.19.23288788
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2023.04.19.23288788
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/20/2023.04.19.23288788.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/20/2023.04.19.23288788.full
AB  - Purpose To compare the repeatability of central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements taken with a new hand-held pachymeter (Occuity PM1 Pachymeter) and to assess its agreement with ultrasound biometry and two commercially available optical biometers in participants with normal eyes.Methods Three consecutive CCT measurements of the right eye of 105 participants with normal corneas were acquired by the PM1 pachymeter, Lenstar LS900 and Oculus Pentacam HR in a random order. This was followed by three measurements with a hand-held ultrasound pachymeter (UP) (Pachmate-2). Repeatability and the repeatability limit were calculated with each device and Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LoA) were determined for the PM1 pachymeter compared to the other devices.Results The mean CCT (±SD) was 551.04±33.43 μm, 558.62±31.46 μm, 549.41±31.00 μm, and 539.73±29.50 μm for the PM1 pachymeter, UP, Lenstar and Pentacam, respectively. The repeatability limits (expressed as the within subject SD for repeat measurements) were 14.02, 13.68, 4.99 and 9.90 μm respectively. The closest agreement was between the PM1 and Lenstar (mean difference = 1.63 μm with LoA 10.72 μm below and 13.97 μm above the readings obtained with the Lenstar. The PM1 underestimated CCT compared to UP (mean difference = 7.58 μm, LoA 24.63 μm below and 9.47 μm above UP. The agreement was lowest between the PM1 and Pentacam (mean difference= -11.30 μm, LoA between 4.29 μm and 26.89 μm).Conclusions The PM1 pachymeter shows excellent precision for CCT measurements across a range of corneal thicknesses in normal eyes and provides a safe and easy to use alternative to ultrasound pachymetry.Key pointsMeasurement of central corneal thickness (CCT) is an important clinical measurement in the diagnosis and management of glaucoma and certain corneal dystrophies, it also provides useful information prior to refractive surgeryThe Occuity PM1 pachymeter is a new hand-held non-contact perimeter that uses confocal technology to measure CCT. The device showed excellent precision for CCT measurements across a range of corneal thicknesses in normal eyesThe PM1 pachymeter provides a safe and easy to use alternative to ultrasound pachymetry that could facilitate an increased uptake of pachymetry in routine optometric practiceCompeting Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe work ws supported by Occuity LtdAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study conformed to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the School of Health and Psychological Sciences Research and Ethics Committee (REC reference: ETH2021-1765)I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors