Comparison of techniques for measuring anterior chamber depth: Orbscan imaging, Smith’s technique, and van Herick’s method

Background Evaluation of anterior chamber depth (ACD) can potentially identify those patients at risk of angle-closure glaucoma. We aimed to: compare van Herick’s limbal chamber depth (LCDvh) grades with LCDorb grades calculated from the Orbscan anterior chamber angle values; determine Smith’s techn...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology 2011-03, Vol.249 (3), p.449-454
Main Authors: Eperjesi, Frank, Holden, Claire
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adolescent
Adult
Anterior Chamber - pathology
Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological - instrumentation
Female
Glaucoma
Glaucoma, Angle-Closure - diagnosis
Humans
Male
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Middle Aged
Ophthalmology
Reproducibility of Results
Young Adult
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background Evaluation of anterior chamber depth (ACD) can potentially identify those patients at risk of angle-closure glaucoma. We aimed to: compare van Herick’s limbal chamber depth (LCDvh) grades with LCDorb grades calculated from the Orbscan anterior chamber angle values; determine Smith’s technique ACD and compare to Orbscan ACD; and calculate a constant for Smith’s technique using Orbscan ACD. Methods Eighty participants free from eye disease underwent LCDvh grading, Smith’s technique ACD, and Orbscan anterior chamber angle and ACD measurement. Results LCDvh overestimated grades by a mean of 0.25 (coefficient of repeatability [CR] 1.59) compared to LCDorb. Smith’s technique (constant 1.40 and 1.31) overestimated ACD by a mean of 0.33 mm (CR 0.82) and 0.12 mm (CR 0.79) respectively, compared to Orbscan. Using linear regression, we determined a constant of 1.22 for Smith’s slit-length method. Conclusions Smith’s technique (constant 1.31) provided an ACD that is closer to that found with Orbscan compared to a constant of 1.40 or LCDvh. Our findings also suggest that Smith’s technique would produce values closer to that obtained with Orbscan by using a constant of 1.22.
ISSN:0721-832X
1435-702X
DOI:10.1007/s00417-010-1500-0