摘要
目的：探讨眼前段光学相干断层扫描仪（ Visante OCT ）、裂隙灯型眼前段光学相干断层扫描仪（ SL-OCT ）、OrbscanⅡz角膜地形图/角膜测厚系统（ OrbscanⅡz）和A型超声测量仪测量近视人群中央角膜厚度（ central corneal thickness ，CCT）的差异及相关性，以评价三种光学测量仪器在测量中央角膜厚度的准确性，为其临床应用提供依据。 方法：对近视患者43例86眼分别用Visante OCT、SL-OCT、OrbscanⅡz和A型超声测量仪进行CCT的测量，并对四种仪器测量的CCT值采用单因素方差分析， LSD-t法两两比较，Pearson相关分析。 结果：Visante OCT、SL-OCT、OrbscanⅡz和A型超声测量仪测量 CCT 的平均值分别为（521．05±29．88）μm、（533.73±31．83）μm、（534．02±32．96）μm、（540．60±31.11）μm，95％可信区间分别为（514．57～527．54），（526．83～540．65），（533．85～547．35），（536．75～544.45）。 Visante OCT 与SL-OCT（P＝0．009）、A型超声测量仪（P＜0．01）、OrbscanⅡz（P＝0．008）的CCT测量值差异均有统计学意义。 Visante OCT 的CCT测量值分别低于SL-OCT的CCT测量值（12．69±9．32）μm，低于A型超声测量仪的 CCT 测量值（19．55±8．64）μm，低于OrbscanⅡz的CCT测量值（12．96±12．21）μm。 SL-OCT与A型超声测量仪（ P＝0．158）、OrbscanⅡz （ P＝0．954）的CCT测量值差异均无统计学意义。 OrbscanⅡz与A型超声测量仪的 CCT 测量值差异无统计学意义（ P＝0.176）。四种方法CCT测量值均呈正相关（ P＜0．01）。 结论：三种光学测量仪器测量CCT值与A超测量值均有很好的相关性。 OrbscanⅡz和SL-OCT测量CCT值与A超的测量值基本一致。三种光学测量仪器与A超相比具有非接触性、无创性、测量时间短等特点，更易被患者接受。
AIM：To compare the difference and correlation of central corneal thickness （ CCT ） measured by Zeiss Visante Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography （ Visante OCT ） , Heidelberg Slit -Lamp Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography （ SL-OCT） , OrbscanⅡz Computerized Topography （ OrbscanⅡz ） and A-mode ultrasound pachymetry.
METHODS：Forty-three patients with myopia （86 eyes） were included. Sequential measurements of CCT was performed by the same operator with two different anterior segment OCT devices （ VisanteTM , Carl Zeiss, Meditec and Heidelberg EngineeringTM ）, OrbscanⅡz Computerized Topography （ Bausch and Lomb IncTM ） and A-mode ultrasound pachymetry.The consistency of measurements was statistically analyzed by one-way ANOVA and LSD pair-wise comparisons.The differences were analyzed by Pearson correlation coefficients.
RESULTS：The average CCT measured by Visante OCT, SL -OCT, Orbscan Ⅱ z, and A -mode ultrasound pachymetry were （521.05 ±29.88）μm, （533.73 ±31.83）μm, （534.02 ±32.96 ）μm, and （ 540.60 ±31.11 ）μm, the 95%confidence interval were （514.57 ~527.54）, （526.83 ~540.65）, （533.85~547.35）, （536.75~544.45）.There was statistically significant difference of CCT between using of Visante OCT and SL-OCT （ P =0.009 ）. There was statistically significant difference of CCT using of Visante OCT and A-mode ultrasound pachymetry （ P〈0.01 ）, OrbscanⅡ z （ P =0.008 ）. The Visante OCT CCT measurements was significantly less than CCT with SL-OCT （ 12.69 ±9.32 ） μm. Compare with A -mode ultrasound pachymetry and OrbscanⅡz, the Visante OCT measurements significantly underestimated central corneal thickness by a mean of （ 19.55 ±8.64 ）μm and （12.96±12.21）μm.There was no significant difference of CCT between using of SL-OCT and A-mode ultrasound pachymetry （P=0.158）, OrbscanⅡz （P=0.954）.There was no significant difference of CCT between using of OrbscanⅡz and A-mode ultrasound pachymetry （ P=0.176 ） . There were positive correlationship among Visante OCT, SL-OCT, OrbscanⅡz, and A-mode ultrasound pachymetry in CCT measurement （ P 〈0.01 ） .
CONCLUSION： There are excellent correlationship among Visante OCT, SL-OCT,OrbscanⅡz, and A-mode ultrasound pachymetry in CCT measurement.The data shows that the CCT obtained by SL-OCT and OrbscanⅡz do not have significant difference as compared with that from the A-mode ultrasound pachymetry.Three optical measurement devices is more likely to be accepted by patients because of its non-contact, non-invasive, and short measurement time as compared with the A-mode ultrasound pachymetry.
出处
《国际眼科杂志》
CAS
2013年第12期2545-2548,共4页
International Eye Science
