目的对比IOLMaster 700、OPD-ScanⅢ与MODi 2角膜地形图仪3种仪器在测量白内障患者水平角膜直径(white to white,WTW)、平坦轴角膜曲率(keratometry of flataxial,Kf)和陡峭轴角膜曲率(keratometry of steepaxial,Ks)的差异性和一致性...目的对比IOLMaster 700、OPD-ScanⅢ与MODi 2角膜地形图仪3种仪器在测量白内障患者水平角膜直径(white to white,WTW)、平坦轴角膜曲率(keratometry of flataxial,Kf)和陡峭轴角膜曲率(keratometry of steepaxial,Ks)的差异性和一致性。方法选取2019年11月至12月于西安市第四医院眼科白内障人工晶状体中心就诊并拟行白内障超声乳化抽吸联合人工晶状体植入术的患者54例(92只眼),其中男17例(28只眼),女37例(64只眼),平均年龄(52.83±15.00)岁。采用3种仪器分别测量患者的WTW、Kf、Ks。采用方差分析及LSD-t检验比较仪器间的差异性,Pearson相关性分析分析仪器相关性及Bland-Altman法评价仪器的一致性。结果 3种仪器测量WTW、Kf、Ks值时,只有IOLMaster 700与OPD-ScanⅢ的WTW值、OPD-ScanⅢ与MODi 2角膜地形图仪的WTW值差异有统计学意义(P<0.001),余测量值差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。相关性分析中,3种仪器测量值均呈现出显著正相关性,相关系数r在0.75~0.98之间。Bland Altman法评价仪器的一致性时,IOLMaster 700与OPD-ScanⅢ、IOLMaster 700与MODi 2角膜地形图仪、OPD-ScanⅢ与MODi 2角膜地形图仪测量WTW、Kf、Ks值95%一致性界限外比例分别为(5.43%、6.52%、4.34%)、(4.34%、4.34%和7.61%)、(5.43%、5.43%和7.61%)。结论 3种仪器测量Kf、Ks值差异无统计学意义,IOLMaster 700与MODi 2角膜地形图仪测量WTW值差异无统计学意义,但3种仪器测量Kf、Ks、WTW差异均有临床意义,不能互换使用。展开更多
Background:To compare two swept-source optical coherence tomography(SS-OCT)biometers,IOLMaster 700 and ANTERION.Methods:This is a retrospective study.Biometric measurements of cataract patients performed between March...Background:To compare two swept-source optical coherence tomography(SS-OCT)biometers,IOLMaster 700 and ANTERION.Methods:This is a retrospective study.Biometric measurements of cataract patients performed between March and July 2021 in the Department of Ophthalmology,United Christian Hospital,Hong Kong,were reviewed.Patients scheduled for cataract surgery were measured with both SS-OCT devices on the same day.The following biometry parameters were compared:keratometry(K),total keratometry(TK),axial length(AL),central corneal thickness(CCT),anterior chamber depth(ACD),lens thickness(LT),white-to-white(WTW)and the predicted intraocular lens(IOL)power to achieve emmetropia.To assess the agreement between the devices,Bland-Altman analysis with 95%limits of agreement(LoA)were used.Results:In total,92 eyes of 47 subjects were measured with both devices.There were statistically significant differences between the two biometers for most measurements(P<0.05)except for flat K,AL and IOL power when using the right eyes for analysis.For the left eyes,there were statistically significant differences in the measurements from the two biometers in all parameters except for flat and steep K.The ANTERION did not obtain ACD,AL and LT in 2(2.17%),1(1.09%)and 5 cases(5.43%)respectively.Conclusions:The two biometers showed a clinically acceptable agreement in most parameters.Comparisons showed significant differences in most parameters but not clinically relevant except for the TK and WTW,and these two parameters should not be used interchangeably between the devices.展开更多
文摘Background:To compare two swept-source optical coherence tomography(SS-OCT)biometers,IOLMaster 700 and ANTERION.Methods:This is a retrospective study.Biometric measurements of cataract patients performed between March and July 2021 in the Department of Ophthalmology,United Christian Hospital,Hong Kong,were reviewed.Patients scheduled for cataract surgery were measured with both SS-OCT devices on the same day.The following biometry parameters were compared:keratometry(K),total keratometry(TK),axial length(AL),central corneal thickness(CCT),anterior chamber depth(ACD),lens thickness(LT),white-to-white(WTW)and the predicted intraocular lens(IOL)power to achieve emmetropia.To assess the agreement between the devices,Bland-Altman analysis with 95%limits of agreement(LoA)were used.Results:In total,92 eyes of 47 subjects were measured with both devices.There were statistically significant differences between the two biometers for most measurements(P<0.05)except for flat K,AL and IOL power when using the right eyes for analysis.For the left eyes,there were statistically significant differences in the measurements from the two biometers in all parameters except for flat and steep K.The ANTERION did not obtain ACD,AL and LT in 2(2.17%),1(1.09%)and 5 cases(5.43%)respectively.Conclusions:The two biometers showed a clinically acceptable agreement in most parameters.Comparisons showed significant differences in most parameters but not clinically relevant except for the TK and WTW,and these two parameters should not be used interchangeably between the devices.
