Suppr超能文献

使用 Visante 光学相干断层扫描仪、裂隙灯光学相干断层扫描仪、IOL Master、Pentacam 和 Orbscan IIz 评估前房深度。

Assessment of anterior chamber depth using Visante optical coherence tomography, slitlamp optical coherence tomography, IOL Master, Pentacam and Orbscan IIz.

机构信息

Ophthalmology Department, Yeditepe University Eye Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

出版信息

Ophthalmologica. 2010;224(6):341-6. doi: 10.1159/000313815. Epub 2010 May 4.

Abstract

AIMS

To assess and compare the anterior chamber depth (ACD) by different anterior segment imaging techniques.

METHODS

Eighty healthy eyes of 40 patients were recruited, and 3 consecutive measurements of ACD were determined prospectively utilizing Visante optical coherence tomography (OCT), slitlamp (SL) OCT, IOL Master, Pentacam and Orbscan IIz. The statistical significance of interdevice differences between measurements was evaluated by one-way ANOVA and Bland-Altman analysis. The repeatability of 3 consecutive measurements was analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA.

RESULTS

The mean ACD was 2.98 ± 0.29, 2.85 ± 0.29, 3.33 ± 0.42, 2.93 ± 0.30 and 2.80 ± 0.29 mm with Visante OCT, SL-OCT, IOL Master, Pentacam and Orbscan IIz, respectively. All devices displayed a high intrasession repeatability (repeated-measures ANOVA, p > 0.05). ACD measurements obtained by the IOL Master were significantly greater compared to other devices. ACD values detected by Visante OCT and SL-OCT, Pentacam and Orbscan IIz were not clinically interchangeable, even though no statistically significant difference was detected.

CONCLUSION

Although noncontact ACD measurements using all modalities were easy to handle and demonstrated good repeatability, the tested devices were not regarded as compatible. Hence, the clinician should take the different modalities into consideration during ACD assessment using various devices.

摘要

目的

评估和比较不同眼前节成像技术的前房深度(ACD)。

方法

招募了 40 名患者的 80 只健康眼,前瞻性地使用 Visante 光学相干断层扫描(OCT)、裂隙灯(SL)OCT、IOL Master、Pentacam 和 Orbscan IIz 连续测量 3 次 ACD。通过单向方差分析和 Bland-Altman 分析评估了不同设备之间测量值的统计学差异。通过重复测量方差分析分析了 3 次连续测量的重复性。

结果

Visante OCT、SL-OCT、IOL Master、Pentacam 和 Orbscan IIz 分别测量的平均 ACD 为 2.98±0.29、2.85±0.29、3.33±0.42、2.93±0.30 和 2.80±0.29mm。所有设备的内组内重复性均较高(重复测量方差分析,p>0.05)。与其他设备相比,IOL Master 测量的 ACD 明显更大。虽然没有统计学差异,但 Visante OCT 和 SL-OCT、Pentacam 和 Orbscan IIz 检测到的 ACD 值并不具有临床可互换性。

结论

尽管使用所有模式的非接触式 ACD 测量都易于操作且重复性良好,但测试的设备并不被认为是兼容的。因此,临床医生在使用各种设备评估 ACD 时应考虑不同的模式。

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