Skip to main content
. 2024 Dec 2;11:1485718. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1485718

Table 2.

Literature reported central stromal thickness in normal adults.

# Author Sample, n (M,F,All) Age in years, Mean ± SD ST in μm, Mean ± SD AR in μm Manufacture brand Year
1 Kim et al. (15) 122 (M) 45.3 ± 18.0 489.6 ± 31.6 5 Optovue RTVue 2016
2 Kim et al. (15) 88 (F) 43.7 ± 17.3 484.4 ± 32.8 5 Optovue RTVue 2016
3 Optovue iVue FDA (31) 108 (All) 42.0 ± 15.7 485.2 ± 20.0 5 Optovue iVue 2017
4 Hashmani et al. (13) 118 (M) 40.0 (All) 467.4 ± 32.3 5 Optovue Avanti 2020
5 Hashmani et al. (13) 109 (F) 466.7 ± 30.1 5 Optovue Avanti 2020
6 Reinstein et al. (12) 110 eyes (56 All) 38.4 ± 12.0 465.4 ± 36.9 NA Artemis VHFUS 2009
7 Haque et al. (32) 20 (9F, 11 M) 27.6 ± 5.9 463.4 ± 21.1 NA Humphrey-Zeiss OCT 2000 2008
8 Batawi et al. (8) 58 (M) 68.2 ± 10.6 465.2 ± 31.2 4 Zeiss Cirrus OCT 2018
8 Luft et al. (33) 40 eyes (20 All) 33 6 ± 11 482.1 ± 25.0 4.16 Nidek 2016
9 Current study 68 (M) 44.3 ± 16.9 487.5 ± 32.2 5 Optovue Avanti 2022
10 Current study 66 (F) 45.2 ± 18.3 481.6 ± 33.0 5 Optovue Avanti 2022

n, Sample number; ST, Stromal thickness; AR, Axial resolution; M, Male; F, Female; SD, Standard deviation; VHFUS, Very high frequency ultrasound; NA, Not available.