EC Ophthalmology

Purpose: To establish the normative values of central corneal thickness (CCT) and anterior chamber depth (ACD) and compare it between males and females among young healthy Saudi subjects.

Methods: Sixty healthy young Saudis from both genders aged between 18 to 29 years old participated in this prospective cross-sectional study. Subjects without ocular or systemic diseases were included. The mean of two automatic readings of the CCT and ACD at the same session to assess the repeatability and in two separated sessions to assess the reproducibility of Pentacam HR (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany).

Results: The (Mean ± SD) of the overall CCT value was 540.58 ± 31.37 µm. While the overall ACD value was 3.02 ± 0.26 mm. There was no significant difference between males and females in CCT mean values with P-value 0.276, and there was no significant difference between males and females in ACD mean values with P-value 0.729. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) values for CCT and ACD measurements were 0.968 and 0.992 respectively, such results indicate an excellent level of repeatability. While inter-class correlation coefficient (ICC) values for CCT and ACD measurements were 0.973 and 0.993 respectively, such results indicate an excellent level of reproducibility.

Conclusion: Pentacam is highly repeatable and reproducible in measuring CCT and ACD. There was no significant difference between males and females in those parameters. This study revealed a valuable information about the normal values of anterior segment parameters of healthy Saudi population and the results may help optometrist and ophthalmologist in clinical applications.

 Keywords: Pentacam; CCT; ACD; Normative Values; Comparison Between Males and Females; Saudi Population

1. Waring GO., et al. “The corneal endothelium. Normal and pathologic structure and function”. Ophthalmology 6 (1982): 531-590.
2. Kopplin LJ., et al. “Relationship of Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy severity to central corneal thickness”. Archives of Ophthalmology 4 (2012): 433-439.
3. Meghpara B., et al. “Keratectasia after laser in situ keratomileusis: a histopathologic and immunohistochemical study”. Archives of Ophthalmology 12 (2008): 1655-1663.
4. Gordon MO., et al. “The ocular hypertension treatment study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma”. Archives of Ophthalmology 6 (2002): 714-720 discussion 829-730.
5. Hoffmann EM., et al. “Distribution of central corneal thickness and its association with ocular parameters in a large central European cohort: The Gutenberg Health Study”. PLOS ONE8 (2013): e66158.
6. Feng MT., et al. “Anterior chamber depth in normal subjects by rotating scheimpflug imaging”. Saudi Journal of Ophthalmology 3 (2011): 255-259.
7. Orucoglu F., et al. “Analysis of age, refractive error and gender related changes of the cornea and the anterior segment of the eye with Scheimpflug imaging”. Contact Lens and Anterior Eye 5 (2015): 345-350.
8. Zengrui Zhang., et al. “Correlation between refractive errors and ocular biometric parameters in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. BMC Ophthalmology1 (2023): 472.
9. Anterior chamber of eyeball (2025).
10. Tarongoy P., et al. “Angle-closure glaucoma: The role of the lens in the pathogenesis, prevention, and treatment”. Survey of Ophthalmology2 (2009): 211-225.
11. Zhou S., et al. “Refractive error and anterior chamber depth as risk factors in primary angle closure disease: the Chinese American eye study”. Journal of Glaucoma 4 (2023): 257-264.
12. Huang W., et al. “The anterior and posterior biometric characteristics in primary angle-closure disease: Data based on anterior segment optical coherence tomography and swept-source optical coherence tomography”. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 4 (2021): 865-870.
13. Hashmani N., et al. “Effect of age, sex, and refractive errors on central corneal thickness measured by Oculus Pentacam(^®)”. Clinical Ophthalmology 11 (2017): 1233-1238.
14. Kim WK., et al. “Effect of gender, age, and ocular and growth-related factors on corneal epithelial and stromal thickness in children”. Journal of Clinical Medicine 12 (2020): 3849.
15. Baghdasaryan E., et al. “Reproducibility of central corneal thickness measurements in normal eyes using the Zeiss Cirrus 5000 HD-OCT and Pentacam HR”. The Open Ophthalmology Journal 12 (2018): 72-83.
16. Huang J., et al. “A comparison between Scheimpflug imaging and optical coherence tomography in measuring corneal thickness”. Ophthalmology10 (2013): 1951-1958.
17. “Issue Information-Declaration of Helsinki”. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 3 (2019): BMi-BMii.
18. Daly L and Bourke G. “Interpretation and Uses of Medical Statistics, Fifth Edition” (2000).
19. Al-Rajhi L., et al. “Measurement of anterior segment parameters in Saudi adults with myopia”. Saudi Journal of Ophthalmology3 (2018): 194-199.
20. Huang W., et al. “Anterior and posterior ocular biometry in healthy Chinese subjects: data based on AS-OCT and SS-OCT”. PLOS ONE3 (2015): e0121740.