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

Frank Eperjesi, Claire Holden

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)449-454
Number of pages6
JournalGraefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology
Volume249
Issue number3
Early online date11 Sep 2010
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2011

Keywords

  • adolescent
  • adult
  • anterior chamber
  • ophthalmological diagnostic techniques
  • female
  • angle-closure glaucoma
  • humans
  • male
  • middle aged
  • reproducibility of results
  • young adult

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of techniques for measuring anterior chamber depth: Orbscan imaging, Smith's technique, and van Herick's method'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this