[作为临床常规操作的一部分，比较光学相干法（蔡司IOL-Master）与两种超声生物测量法在白内障超声乳化术后计算后房型人工晶状体中的应用]

[Comparison of the optical coherence method (Zeiss IOL-Master) with two ultrasonographic biometric methods for the calculation of posterior chamber intraocular lenses after phacoemulsification as part of clinical routine].

作者信息

Remsch H, Kampmeier J, Muche R, Lang G E, Lang G K

机构信息

Augenklinik, Universitätsklinikum Ulm.

出版信息

Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2004 Oct;221(10):837-42. doi: 10.1055/s-2004-813658.

DOI:10.1055/s-2004-813658

PMID:15499518

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The aim of this work was to investigate the accuracy of prediction of three different biometric methods for the calculation of posterior chamber intraocular lenses.

METHODS

In 59 consecutive patients who underwent extracapsular cataract-extraction with posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation, we compared the refractive results at the first day (D1) and 6 weeks (W6) after surgery with the calculated refraction of three biometric methods: the Carl Zeiss "IOL-Master 99" (IOLM), the Biovision "Echograph Class 1 - Type B" (BIOV) and the Allergan Humphrey "Ultrasonic Biometer Mod. 820" (AHUB). For statistical calculation box-plots, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and linear regression analysis were used.

RESULTS

In all patients the mean of the postoperative refraction was - 0.07 D (SD: 1.41) at day 1 and 0.12 D (SD: 1.18) at week 6. Compared to the postoperative refraction at week 6, the calculated refractive values were higher in all three measuring devices: IOLM: + 0.28 D (SD: 0.67), BIOV: + 0.60 D (SD: 0.88), AHUB: + 0.26 D (SD: 0.92). There were no statistically significant differences between IOLM and BIOV, or respectively, AHUB and BIOV (p < 0.0001), but a significant difference was found between IOLM and AHUB, (p = 0.906). To adjust for systematic differences of the agreement, one can calculate the postoperative refraction at week 6 (REF6) from IOLM by using the linear regression formula: REF6 = 1.1 x IOLM + 0.3.

CONCLUSION

A comparison between the three biometric methods and the refractive results at day 1 and week 6 after cataract surgery with implantation of a posterior chamber intraocular lens showed that the calculated mean values obtained from the three biometric methods are higher than the real postoperative refraction. Calculations using the Zeiss IOL-Master and the Allergan Humphrey Ultrasonic Biometer are closer to the patient's postoperative refraction than calculations using the Biovision Echograph.

摘要

背景

本研究旨在探讨三种不同生物测量方法预测后房型人工晶状体度数的准确性。

方法

在59例连续接受白内障囊外摘除联合后房型人工晶状体植入术的患者中，我们将术后第1天（D1）和6周（W6）的屈光结果与三种生物测量方法计算出的屈光度进行了比较：卡尔·蔡司“IOL-Master 99”（IOLM）、Biovision“Echograph Class 1 - Type B”（BIOV）和爱尔康Humphrey“Ultrasonic Biometer Mod. 820”（AHUB）。采用箱线图、Wilcoxon符号秩检验和线性回归分析进行统计学计算。

结果

所有患者术后第1天的平均屈光度为-0.07 D（标准差：1.41），第6周为0.12 D（标准差：1.18）。与术后第6周的屈光度相比，三种测量设备计算出的屈光值均偏高：IOLM：+0.28 D（标准差：0.67），BIOV：+0.60 D（标准差：0.88），AHUB：+0.26 D（标准差：0.92）。IOLM与BIOV之间，以及AHUB与BIOV之间均无统计学显著差异（p<0.0001），但IOLM与AHUB之间存在显著差异（p = 0.906）。为校正一致性的系统差异，可使用线性回归公式从IOLM计算术后第6周的屈光度（REF6）：REF6 = 1.1×IOLM + 0.3。