Chiseliţă D, Cantemir Alina, Gălăţanu Cătălina, Irod Alexandra
UMF "GR.T. Popa", Iaşi.
Oftalmologia. 2011;55(4):104-10.
To compare two new optical biometry devices with an ultrasonic immersion biometer.
Oftaprof Clinic, Iasi, Romania.
In this prospective comparative observational study were included 420 eyes that underwent cataract extraction. Axial length measurements were performed using a Allegro BioGraph biometer, which uses optical low-coherence reflectometry (OLCR), an IOLMaster 500 biometer, which uses partial coherence interferometry (PCI) and an OcuScan ultrasonic biometer. The measurement duration and the number of eyes in which the measurements with each device could be performed were compared. Intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation was performed and the IOL prediction error was calculated for each eye four weeks postoperatively.
The mean difference in axial length measurements was 0.02 mm +/- 0.04 (SD) between the new PCI and the OLCR device, 0.14 +/- 0.13 (SD) mm between the ultrasonic biometer and the new PCI device and 0.18 +/- 0.09 (SD) mm between the ultrasonic biometer and the OLCR device (P=.52, P=.001 and P<.001, respectively). Measurements with the OLCR device took significantly longer than with the ultrasonic device (mean difference 88 +/- 27 seconds), and measurements with the ultrasonic device took significantly longer than with the new PCI device (mean difference 188 +/- 46 seconds) (P<.001). The mean absolute error in IOL power prediction was 0.49 D +/- 0.29 (SD) with the OLCR device and 0.52 +/- 0.33 (SD) D with the PCI unit and 0.77 +/- 0.65 (SD) with the ultrasonic biometer. The measurements could be performed in 420 eyes (100%) with the ultrasonic biometer, in 152 eyes (36.2%) with the OLCR device and in 151 eyes (35,9%) with the new PCI device.
Measurements of the axial length were comparable between OLCR device and the new PCI device. There was a good correlation between the measurements with optical devices and the ultrasonic biometer. Measurements with the OLCR device took the longest to perform. Implant power calculation were comparable between the two optical devices. The ultrasonic biometry remains a very useful tool in cases with severe lens opacification which are extremely frequent in our service.
比较两种新型光学生物测量设备与一台超声浸入式生物测量仪。
罗马尼亚雅西的奥塔普罗夫诊所。
在这项前瞻性比较观察研究中,纳入了420只接受白内障摘除术的眼睛。使用采用光学低相干反射ometry(OLCR)的Allegro BioGraph生物测量仪、采用部分相干干涉测量法(PCI)的IOLMaster 500生物测量仪和OcuScan超声生物测量仪进行眼轴长度测量。比较了测量持续时间以及使用每种设备能够进行测量的眼睛数量。进行了人工晶状体(IOL)屈光力计算,并在术后四周计算了每只眼睛的IOL预测误差。
新型PCI设备与OLCR设备之间眼轴长度测量的平均差值为0.02毫米±0.04(标准差),超声生物测量仪与新型PCI设备之间为0.14±0.13(标准差)毫米,超声生物测量仪与OLCR设备之间为0.18±0.09(标准差)毫米(P分别为0.52、0.001和<0.001)。使用OLCR设备进行测量的时间明显长于使用超声设备(平均差值88±27秒),使用超声设备进行测量的时间明显长于使用新型PCI设备(平均差值188±46秒)(P<0.001)。OLCR设备的IOL屈光力预测平均绝对误差为0.49 D±0.29(标准差),PCI设备为0.52±0.33(标准差)D,超声生物测量仪为0.77±0.65(标准差)。超声生物测量仪能够在420只眼睛(100%)中进行测量,OLCR设备能在152只眼睛(36.2%)中进行测量,新型PCI设备能在151只眼睛(35.9%)中进行测量。
OLCR设备与新型PCI设备之间的眼轴长度测量结果具有可比性。光学设备与超声生物测量仪的测量结果之间存在良好的相关性。使用OLCR设备进行测量耗时最长。两种光学设备的植入屈光力计算结果具有可比性。在我们诊所极为常见的严重晶状体混浊病例中,超声生物测量仍然是一种非常有用的工具。