Suppr超能文献

通过镜面显微镜检查、超声测厚法和超声生物显微镜检查对中央角膜厚度测量结果的比较。

Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by specular microscopy, ultrasound pachymetry, and ultrasound biomicroscopy.

作者信息

Tam Eric S, Rootman David S

机构信息

Department of Ophthalmology, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003 Jun;29(6):1179-84. doi: 10.1016/s0886-3350(02)01921-1.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare the reproducibility and mean values of central corneal thickness (CCT) obtained by specular microscopy, ultrasound pachymetry, and ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM).

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

Thirty-one healthy volunteers were recruited for a sample size of 62 eyes. All subjects had pachymetric measurements by specular microscopy, ultrasound pachymetry, and UBM. Three separate measurements meeting criteria for centrality and perpendicularity were recorded for each eye.

RESULTS

The mean CCT by specular microscopy was 572 microm (95% confidence interval (CI), 566-578 microm), which was significantly greater than 550 microm (95% CI, 545-556 microm) (P<.001) and 555 microm (95% CI, 550-560 microm) (P<.001) by ultrasound pachymetry and UBM, respectively. The mean standard deviation (SD) of repeated measurements by specular microscopy was 7.82 microm, which was significantly greater than the mean SDs of 4.14 microm (P<.001) and 3.90 microm (P<.001) by ultrasound pachymetry and UBM, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the mean SDs by ultrasound pachymetry and UBM (P=.156).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the CCT measurements by specular microscopy were significantly less reproducible than those by ultrasound pachymetry and UBM, the error levels were clinically acceptable. Both ultrasound pachymetry and UBM produced similar CCT measurements, which were significantly less than those generated by specular microscopy. One should be aware of the advantages and limitations of each machine and of possible differences in the CCT measurements by optical and ultrasound pachymetry.

摘要

目的

比较镜面显微镜、超声测厚法和超声生物显微镜(UBM)测量中央角膜厚度(CCT)的可重复性及平均值。

设置

加拿大多伦多大学眼科。

方法

招募31名健康志愿者,样本量为62只眼。所有受试者均接受镜面显微镜、超声测厚法和UBM的测厚测量。每只眼记录三次符合中心性和垂直度标准的单独测量值。

结果

镜面显微镜测量的平均CCT为572微米(95%置信区间[CI],566 - 578微米),分别显著大于超声测厚法的550微米(95% CI,545 - 556微米)(P <.001)和UBM的555微米(95% CI,550 - 560微米)(P <.001)。镜面显微镜重复测量的平均标准差(SD)为7.82微米,分别显著大于超声测厚法的4.14微米(P <.001)和UBM的3.90微米(P <.001)。超声测厚法和UBM的平均SD之间无统计学显著差异(P = 0.156)。

结论

尽管镜面显微镜测量CCT的可重复性明显低于超声测厚法和UBM,但误差水平在临床上可接受。超声测厚法和UBM产生的CCT测量值相似,均显著低于镜面显微镜测量值。应了解每种仪器的优缺点以及光学和超声测厚法测量CCT时可能存在的差异。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验