Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements with different non-contact devices in healthy children

•Central corneal thickness (CCT) has a highly significant place in ophthalmology practice.•It is a clinical assessment tool used in refractive surgery, glaucoma, and corneal diseases.•Ultrasonic pachymetry is the gold standard in the measurement of CCT although it has disadvantages such as being a contact-based method, requiring topical anesthesia, carrying risks including corneal erosion and infection. To investigate the agreement of the Combined Scheimpflug-Placido Disk System (Sirius), specular microscopy (Tomey EM-4000), non-contact tono-pachymetry (Canon TX-20P), and optical low-coherence reflectometry (Lenstar LS 900) devices in the measurement of central corneal thickness (CCT) in healthy children. Eighty-three eyes from 83 healthy children were included in the study. The mean age of the children was 11.1 ± 2.8 (range, 7–17) years. CCT was measured using the Sirius topography, Tomey specular microscopy, Canon TX-20P, and Lenstar LS 900 devices. To examine the agreement among these devices, 95% limits of agreement (LoA) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were determined. The mean CCT values obtained using the Sirius topography, Tomey SM, Canon TX-20 P, and Lenstar 900 devices were 555.9 ± 37 µm, 553.5 ± 39 µm, 569.3 ± 33 µm, and 559.7 ± 38 µm, respectively. With the ICC method, the agreement rates were determined as 0.875 between Canon TX-20P and Sirius topography, 0.903 between Canon TX-20P and Lenstar LS 900, 0.842 between Canon TX-20P and Tomey EM-4000, 0.979 between Sirius Topography and Lenstar LS 900, 0.978 between Sirius topography and Tomey EM-4000, and 0.969 between Lenstar LS 900 and Tomey EM-4000. The devices with the closest results to each other were the Sirius and Tomey EM-4000 devices, with a statistically strong agreement. There was also a strong agreement between Sirius and Lenstar LS 900, although there was a 3.7-unit difference between them. Nevertheless, despite the strong agreements among these devices, because their CCT values varied statistically significantly, these devices should not be used interchangeably in clinical practice.