期刊文献+

Pentacam AXL与IOLMaster700测量人工晶状体度数计算参数的比较 被引量:3

Comparison of the Parameters for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation in Cataract Patients Measured by Pentacam AXL and IOLMaster 700
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的:比较Pentacam AXL与IOLMaster 700两种生物测量仪测量人工晶状体(IOL)度数计算所需参数——眼轴长度(AL)、角膜曲率、散光大小及轴向、前房深度(ACD)等的差异性及一致性。方法:前瞻性对照研究。收集2019年1—5月在厦门大学附属厦门眼科中心就诊的白内障患者92例(106眼),同一观察者分别应用Pentacam AXL与IOLMaster 700测量AL、角膜曲率(K1、K2、Km)、散光大小及轴向(矢量表示法J0、J45)、ACD。分析2种生物测量仪测量参数结果的差异性和相关性,2种仪器测量结果的差异性采用t检验,相关性采用Pearson检验,一致性采用Bland-Altman法分析。结果:Pentacam AXL与IOLMaster 700测量的AL平均值分别为(23.63±2.06)mm和(23.64±2.05)mm,Km值分别为(44.37±1.70)D和(44.45±1.71)D,J0分别为(0.011±0.555)D和(0.009±0.598)D,J45分别为(0.002±0.278)D和(0.013±0.289)D,ACD值分别为(2.96±0.41)mm和(2.91±0.41)mm,差异均无统计学意义(t=0.035,P=0.972;t=0.348,P=0.728;t=-0.020,P=0.984;t=0.300,P=0.764;t=-0.931,P=0.407),且均具有良好的相关性(r=1.000、0.988、0.911、0.811、0.994,均P<0.001)。Bland-Altman一致性分析显示,2种仪器对AL、J0、J45、ACD的测量具有较好的一致性,分别为-0.01 mm(95%LoA:-0.07~0.05 mm),0 D(95%LoA:-0.48~0.48 D),-0.01 D(95%LoA:-0.35~0.33 D)及0.05 mm(95%LoA:0~0.09 mm)。而Km为-0.08 D(95%LoA:-0.59~0.43 D)。结论:Pentacam AXL与IOLMaster 700测量参数间差异无统计学意义,AL、ACD及散光具有良好的一致性,可替换使用,而在角膜曲率测量方面变异幅度较大,替换使用需谨慎。 Objective:To evaluate the differences and consistency in axial length,corneal curvature,anterior chamber depth and astigmatism in cataract patients measured by Pentacam AXL and IOLMaster 700.Methods:This was a prospective controlled study.Ninety cataract patients(106 eyes)were enrolled in Xiamen Eye Center of Xiamen University from January to May 2019.Biometry measurements were performed by the same examiner with Pentacam AXL and IOLMaster 700.The axial length(AL),keratometry reading(K1,K2,Km),J0 and J45 vectoral components of astigmatism and anterior chamber depth(ACD)were obtained.The difference between the two instruments was analyzed.Differences and correlations of biometry measurements obtained with the two biometers were analyzed.The agreement between the two biometers was analyzed by Bland-Altman plot.Results:There were no significant differences in AL,Km,J0,J45 or ACD(t=0.035,P=0.972;t=0.348,P=0.728;t=-0.020,P=0.984;t=0.300,P=0.764;t=-0.931,P=0.407)between Pentacam AXL and IOLMaster 700(23.63±2.06 mm vs.23.64±2.05 mm,44.37±1.70 D vs.44.45±1.71 D,0.011±0.555 D vs.0.009±0.598 D,0.002±0.278 D vs.0.013±0.289 D,2.96±0.41 mm vs.2.91±0.41 mm).All of the biometric parameters showed good correlation(r=1.000,0.988,0.911,0.811,0.994,P<0.01).The Bland-Altman analysis of AL,J0,J45,ACD with Pentacam AXL and IOLMaster 700 showed a mean difference of 0.01 mm(95%LoA:-0.07-0.05 mm),0 D(95%LoA:-0.48-0.48 D),-0.01 D(95%LoA:-0.35-0.33 D)and 0.05 mm(95%LoA:0-0.09 mm)between the 2 devices,respectively,while the mean difference in Km was-0.08 D(95%LoA:-0.59-0.43 D).Conclusions:There is no significant difference in biometric parameters between Pentacam AXL and IOLMaster 700;the 2 devices can be used interchangeably to measure AL,J0,J45 and ACD in cataract patients.However,the Km value is not interchangeable since the devices have a slightly larger variation in measurements.
作者 曾宗圣 张广斌 Zongsheng Zeng;Guangbin Zhang(Xiamen Eye Center of Xiamen University,Xiamen 361000,China)
出处 《中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志》 CAS CSCD 2020年第2期130-135,共6页 Chinese Journal Of Optometry Ophthalmology And Visual Science
关键词 白内障 人工晶状体 生物测量 PENTACAM AXL IOLMASTER 700 cataract intraocular lens biometer Pentacam AXL IOLMaster 700
  • 相关文献

参考文献2

二级参考文献21

  • 1Hoffer KJ. Clinical results using the Holladay 2 intraocular lens power formula. J Cataract Refract Surg,2000,26:1233-1237.
  • 2Olsen T. Prediction of the effective postoperative (intraocular lens) anterior chamber depth. J Cataract Refract Surg,2006, 32:419-424.
  • 3Devereux JG, Foster PJ, Baasanhu J, et al. Anterior chamber depth measurement as a screening tool for primary angle-closure glaucoma in an East Asian population. Arch Ophthalmol,2000, 118 : 257-263.
  • 4Bolz M, Prinz A, Drexler W, et al. Linear relationship of refractive and biometric lenticular changes during accommodation in emmetropic and myopic eyes. Br J Ophthalmol,2007,91: 360-365.
  • 5Nemeth G, Tsorbatzoglou A, Vamosi P, et al. A comparison of accommodation amplitudes in pseudophakic eyes measured with three different methods. Eye (Lond),2008,22:65-69.
  • 6Koranyi G, Lydahl E, Norrby S, et al. Anterior chamber depth measurement: a-scan versus optical methods. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2002,28 : 243-247.
  • 7Giers U, Epple C. Comparison of A-scan device accuracy. J Cataract Refract Surg, 1990,16:235-242.
  • 8Savini G, Carbonelli M, Barboni P, et al. Repealability of automatic measurements performed by a dual Scheimpflug analyzer in unoperated and post-refractive surgery eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2011, 37 : 302-309.
  • 9Salouti R, Nowroozzadeh MH, Zamani M, et al. Comparison of anterior chamber depth measurements using Galilei, HR Pentacam, and Orbscan I1. Optometry,2010,81:35-39.
  • 10Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 1986.1:307-310.

共引文献12

同被引文献18

引证文献3

二级引证文献10

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部