Hura Arjan S, Osher Robert H
J Refract Surg. 2017 Jul 1;33(7):482-487. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20170504-02.
To compare the alignment meridian generated by the Zeiss Callisto Eye (Carl Zeiss AG, Dublin, CA) and the Alcon Verion Image Guided System (Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX).
In this retrospective comparative evaluation of technology, intraoperative images were captured at different steps in the same surgery, allowing the comparison of the guidance lines generated by the Verion system to the parallel guidance lines generated by the Callisto Eye system. Measurements of each hemi-meridian were quantified using Adobe Photoshop 2015 CC software (Adobe Systems, San Jose, CA). The numbers of degrees separating these alignment meridians were calculated, entered into a database, and analyzed.
The authors found that of 98 captured images of 16 eyes, the two technologies were identical in 0 eyes (θ = θ = 0), similar by 3° in 52 (53%) captured images (θ ≠ θ ≠ 0), and different by at least 3° in 46 (47%) captured images (θ ≠ θ ≠ 0). The target meridians were superimposed, the target lines were minimally separated, and the target lines were dissimilar. It was noted that some intraoperative variation occurred from measurement to measurement. Within the small group of 16 cases of routine toric lens implantation in this study, the absolute average number of degrees of misalignment between the Verion and Callisto Eye systems was 3.355 for θ and 3.838 for θ. On average, the intraoperative variation termed "drift" was noted to be 3.963° for θ, and 4.557° for θ.
The authors found that small deviations were frequent when comparing two sophisticated technologies. Although deviations greater than 3° occurred in less than 47% of captured images from 16 eyes, smaller but significant variations of less than 3° occurred in 53% of captured images from 16 eyes. It was rare to identify a large deviation. However, the authors identified "drift" in the same eye when measurements were taken at different times. The results indicate that the two systems are not currently interchangeable. Superiority of one system over the other was not determined. [J Refract Surg. 2017;33(7):482-487.].
比较蔡司Callisto Eye（卡尔蔡司公司，都柏林，加利福尼亚州）和爱尔康Verion图像引导系统（爱尔康实验室公司，沃思堡，得克萨斯州）生成的对准子午线。
在这项技术的回顾性比较评估中，在同一手术的不同步骤采集术中图像，以便比较Verion系统生成的引导线与Callisto Eye系统生成的平行引导线。使用Adobe Photoshop 2015 CC软件（Adobe系统公司，圣何塞，加利福尼亚州）对每个半子午线的测量进行量化。计算这些对准子午线之间的度数差，输入数据库并进行分析。
作者发现，在16只眼睛的98张采集图像中，两种技术在0只眼睛中完全相同（θ = θ = 0），在52张（53%）采集图像中相差3°（θ ≠ θ ≠ 0），在46张（47%）采集图像中相差至少3°（θ ≠ θ ≠ 0）。目标子午线重叠，目标线间隔最小，目标线不同。注意到每次测量之间存在一些术中变化。在本研究中16例常规散光晶状体植入的小样本中，Verion和Callisto Eye系统之间的绝对平均对准度数差，θ为3.355，θ为3.838。平均而言，术中称为“漂移”的变化，θ为3.963°，θ为4.557°。
作者发现，比较两种精密技术时，小偏差很常见。虽然在16只眼睛的采集图像中，大于3°的偏差发生在不到47%的图像中，但在16只眼睛的53%的采集图像中发生了小于3°但显著的变化。很少发现大偏差。然而，作者在不同时间进行测量时，在同一只眼睛中发现了“漂移”。结果表明，这两个系统目前不可互换。未确定一个系统优于另一个系统。[《屈光手术杂志》。2017；33（7）：482 - 487。]
