• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

采用扫频源光学相干断层扫描的新型生物测量仪与采用部分相干干涉测量的传统生物测量仪的比较。

Comparison of a new biometer using swept-source optical coherence tomography and a conventional biometer using partial coherence interferometry.

机构信息

Department of Ophthalmology, Shiga University of Medical Science, Otsu, Shiga, Japan.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2018 Apr 24;13(4):e0196401. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196401. eCollection 2018.

DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0196401
PMID:29689110
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5918161/
Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the axial lengths (ALs) using a new biometer with swept-source optical coherence tomography (Argos) versus ALs using a conventional biometer with partial coherence interferometry (IOL Master, version 5). The ALs in 48 eyes of 48 cataract patients were measured with Argos using refractive indexes that correspond to the particular tissue and with IOL Master using a single refractive index. The eyes were divided into three subgroups by AL length: short-AL group (n = 16), <23.27 mm; intermediate-AL group (n = 16), 23.27-24.03 mm; long-AL group (n = 16), ≥24.04 mm. The ALs (mm) measured with the Argos and IOL Master biometers, respectively, were 22.77 ± 0.43 and 22.74 ± 0.44, 23.63 ± 0.21 and 23.62 ± 0.21, and 26.00 ± 1.61 and 26.05 ± 1.64 in the short-, intermediate-, and long-AL groups, respectively. The mean ALs with the Argos biometer were longer than those with the IOL Master biometer in the short-AL group (P = 0.002) There was no significant difference in the intermediate-AL groups (P = 0.14). In contrast, the mean ALs with the Argos biometer were shorter than those with the IOL Master biometer in the long-AL group (P < 0.001). Differences between the ALs measured with the two biometers were statistically significant in short- and long-AL subgroups. However, the differences might not be clinically significant.

摘要

本研究旨在比较使用新型生物测量仪(Argos)与扫频源光学相干断层扫描仪(Argos)测量的眼轴长度(AL)与使用传统生物测量仪(IOL Master,版本 5)测量的 AL。使用 Argos 测量了 48 例 48 眼白内障患者的 AL,折射率对应于特定组织,使用 IOL Master 测量了单一折射率。根据 AL 长度将眼睛分为三组:短 AL 组(n = 16),<23.27mm;中 AL 组(n = 16),23.27-24.03mm;长 AL 组(n = 16),≥24.04mm。Argos 和 IOL Master 生物测量仪分别测量的 AL(mm)分别为 22.77 ± 0.43 和 22.74 ± 0.44、23.63 ± 0.21 和 23.62 ± 0.21、26.00 ± 1.61 和 26.05 ± 1.64。短、中、长 AL 组中,Argos 生物测量仪的平均 AL 均长于 IOL Master 生物测量仪(P = 0.002)。中间 AL 组差异无统计学意义(P = 0.14)。相反,Argos 生物测量仪的平均 AL 短于 IOL Master 生物测量仪(P < 0.001)。两种生物测量仪测量的 AL 差异在短和长 AL 亚组中具有统计学意义。然而,这些差异可能没有临床意义。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/934b/5918161/98bb1b1c64e1/pone.0196401.g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/934b/5918161/505ae425636d/pone.0196401.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/934b/5918161/2b776d0a9052/pone.0196401.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/934b/5918161/f2672dfdf085/pone.0196401.g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/934b/5918161/1b714fa5d506/pone.0196401.g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/934b/5918161/98bb1b1c64e1/pone.0196401.g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/934b/5918161/505ae425636d/pone.0196401.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/934b/5918161/2b776d0a9052/pone.0196401.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/934b/5918161/f2672dfdf085/pone.0196401.g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/934b/5918161/1b714fa5d506/pone.0196401.g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/934b/5918161/98bb1b1c64e1/pone.0196401.g005.jpg

相似文献

1
Comparison of a new biometer using swept-source optical coherence tomography and a conventional biometer using partial coherence interferometry.采用扫频源光学相干断层扫描的新型生物测量仪与采用部分相干干涉测量的传统生物测量仪的比较。
PLoS One. 2018 Apr 24;13(4):e0196401. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196401. eCollection 2018.
2
Comparison of axial length using a new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometer - ARGOS with partial coherence interferometry- based biometer -IOLMaster among school children.使用新型扫频源光相干断层扫描仪生物测量仪(ARGOS)与基于部分相干干涉测量术的生物测量仪(IOLMaster)对在校儿童眼轴长度进行比较。
PLoS One. 2018 Dec 27;13(12):e0209356. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209356. eCollection 2018.
3
Clinical comparison of a new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer and a time-domain optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer.一种新型扫频源光学相干断层扫描技术光学生物测量仪与一种时域光学相干断层扫描技术光学生物测量仪的临床比较
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015 Oct;41(10):2224-32. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.03.019.
4
Clinical Evaluation of a New Swept-Source Optical Coherence Biometer That Uses Individual Refractive Indices to Measure Axial Length in Cataract Patients.新型扫频源光学相干生物测量仪的临床评估,该仪器使用个体折射率测量白内障患者眼轴长度。
Ophthalmic Res. 2019;62(1):11-23. doi: 10.1159/000496690. Epub 2019 Mar 19.
5
Accuracy of swept-source optical coherence tomography based biometry for intraocular lens power calculation: a retrospective cross-sectional study.基于扫频源光学相干断层扫描的生物测量法用于人工晶状体屈光力计算的准确性:一项回顾性横断面研究。
BMC Ophthalmol. 2019 Jan 24;19(1):30. doi: 10.1186/s12886-019-1036-y.
6
Comparison of a new swept-source optical biometer with a partial coherence interferometry.新型扫频源光学生物测量仪与部分相干干涉测量法的比较。
BMC Ophthalmol. 2018 Oct 19;18(1):269. doi: 10.1186/s12886-018-0936-6.
7
Axial Length Measurement Failure Rates With Biometers Using Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Compared to Partial-Coherence Interferometry and Optical Low-Coherence Interferometry.与部分相干干涉测量法和光学低相干干涉测量法相比,使用扫频源光学相干断层扫描生物测量仪进行眼轴长度测量的失败率
Am J Ophthalmol. 2017 Jan;173:64-69. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2016.09.019. Epub 2016 Sep 21.
8
Repeatability and agreement in optical biometry of a new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometer versus partial coherence interferometry and optical low-coherence reflectometry.一种基于扫频源光学相干断层扫描的新型生物测量仪与部分相干干涉测量法和光学低相干反射测量法在光学生物测量中的可重复性和一致性
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016 Jan;42(1):76-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.07.039.
9
Agreement and clinical comparison between a new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer and an optical low-coherence reflectometry biometer.一种新型基于扫频源光学相干断层扫描技术的光学生物测量仪与光学低相干反射测量生物测量仪之间的一致性及临床比较。
Eye (Lond). 2017 Mar;31(3):437-442. doi: 10.1038/eye.2016.241. Epub 2016 Nov 11.
10
Evaluation of Selected Biometric Parameters in Cataract Patients-A Comparison between Argos and IOLMaster 700: Two Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography-Based Biometers.评估白内障患者的部分生物测量参数:Argos 与 IOLMaster 700 的对比——两种基于扫频源光学相干断层扫描仪的生物测量仪。
Medicina (Kaunas). 2024 Jun 27;60(7):1057. doi: 10.3390/medicina60071057.

引用本文的文献

1
Evaluation of a Simple and Accurate Method for Intraocular Lens Constant Optimization Using Linear Interpolation.使用线性插值法评估一种简单准确的人工晶状体常数优化方法。
J Clin Med. 2025 Jun 26;14(13):4543. doi: 10.3390/jcm14134543.
2
Level of Agreement of Intraocular Lens Power Measurements Between a Swept-Source OCT Biometer and a Partial Coherence Interferometer.扫频光学相干断层扫描生物测量仪与部分相干干涉仪之间人工晶状体屈光力测量的一致性水平
J Clin Med. 2025 Jun 2;14(11):3903. doi: 10.3390/jcm14113903.
3
Refractive accuracy of the new Barrett formula using segmented axial length compared with that of the traditional Barrett Universal II formula.

本文引用的文献

1
Comparison of axial length, anterior chamber depth and intraocular lens power between IOLMaster and ultrasound in normal, long and short eyes.正常眼、长眼和短眼前房深度、眼轴长度和人工晶状体度数的 IOLMaster 与超声测量值比较。
PLoS One. 2018 Mar 15;13(3):e0194273. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194273. eCollection 2018.
2
Efficiency and measurements agreement between swept-source OCT and low-coherence interferometry biometry systems.扫频源光学相干断层扫描与低相干干涉测量生物测量系统之间的效率及测量一致性
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018 Mar;256(3):559-566. doi: 10.1007/s00417-018-3909-9. Epub 2018 Feb 1.
3
Accuracy and feasibility of axial length measurements by a new optical low-coherence reflectometry-based device in eyes with posterior subcapsular cataract.
使用分段眼轴长度的新型巴雷特公式与传统巴雷特通用II公式的屈光准确性比较。
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2025 Jan 21;51(4):294-9. doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001609.
4
Comparison of Precision, Agreement, and Accuracy of Two Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometers.两种扫频源光学相干断层扫描生物测量仪的精密度、一致性和准确性比较。
Diagnostics (Basel). 2024 Oct 30;14(21):2422. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics14212422.
5
Accuracy Validation of the New Barrett True Axial Length Formula and the Optimized Lens Factor Using Sum-of-Segment Biometry.使用分段生物测量法对新型巴雷特真实眼轴长度公式和优化镜片系数进行准确性验证。
J Clin Med. 2024 Aug 8;13(16):4639. doi: 10.3390/jcm13164639.
6
Research progress on prediction of postoperative intraocular lens position.术后人工晶状体位置预测的研究进展。
Indian J Ophthalmol. 2024 Feb 1;72(Suppl 2):S176-S182. doi: 10.4103/IJO.IJO_1839_23. Epub 2024 Jan 25.
7
Randomized Trial Comparing Prediction Accuracy of Two Swept Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometers.比较两种扫频源光学相干断层扫描生物测量仪预测准确性的随机试验
Clin Ophthalmol. 2023 Aug 17;17:2423-2428. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S407538. eCollection 2023.
8
Technical failure rates for biometry between swept-source and older-generation optical coherence methods: a review and meta-analysis.扫频源和旧代光学相干方法的生物测量技术失败率:综述和荟萃分析。
BMC Ophthalmol. 2023 Apr 26;23(1):182. doi: 10.1186/s12886-023-02926-0.
9
Refraction and defocus curves in eyes with monofocal and multifocal intraocular lenses.单焦点和多焦点人工晶状体眼的折射和散焦曲线。
J Optom. 2023 Jul-Sep;16(3):236-243. doi: 10.1016/j.optom.2023.01.005. Epub 2023 Mar 23.
10
Comparison of Astigmatism Prediction Accuracy for Toric Lens Implantation from Two Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Devices.两种扫频源光学相干断层扫描设备用于散光人工晶状体植入散光预测准确性的比较
Clin Ophthalmol. 2022 Nov 17;16:3795-3802. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S378019. eCollection 2022.
新型基于光低相干反射计的设备测量后囊下白内障眼轴长度的准确性和可行性。
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017 Jul;43(7):898-901. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.04.035.
4
Changes in the anterior segment after cycloplegia with a biometer using swept-source optical coherence tomography.使用扫频源光学相干断层扫描生物测量仪进行睫状肌麻痹后眼前节的变化。
PLoS One. 2017 Aug 14;12(8):e0183378. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183378. eCollection 2017.
5
IOL Power Calculation in Short and Long Eyes.短眼和长眼中的人工晶状体屈光度计算
Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 2017 Jul-Aug;6(4):330-331. doi: 10.22608/APO.2017338.
6
Comparison of ocular biometric measurements between a new swept-source optical coherence tomography and a common optical low coherence reflectometry.比较新型扫频源光学相干断层扫描仪和普通光学低相干反射仪的眼部生物测量值。
Sci Rep. 2017 May 30;7(1):2484. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-02463-z.
7
Axial length measurements: Comparison of a new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometer and partial coherence interferometry in myopia.眼轴长度测量:新型扫频源光相干断层扫描仪生物测量仪与部分相干干涉仪在近视中的比较。
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017 Mar;43(3):328-332. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.12.023.
8
Comparison of Axial Length, Corneal Curvature, and Anterior Chamber Depth Measurements of 2 Recently Introduced Devices to a Known Biometer.将最近推出的2种设备的眼轴长度、角膜曲率和前房深度测量值与已知的生物测量仪进行比较。
Am J Ophthalmol. 2017 Jun;178:58-64. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2017.02.027. Epub 2017 Mar 2.
9
Axial Length Measurement Failure Rates With Biometers Using Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Compared to Partial-Coherence Interferometry and Optical Low-Coherence Interferometry.与部分相干干涉测量法和光学低相干干涉测量法相比,使用扫频源光学相干断层扫描生物测量仪进行眼轴长度测量的失败率
Am J Ophthalmol. 2017 Jan;173:64-69. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2016.09.019. Epub 2016 Sep 21.
10
Repeatability and interobserver reproducibility of a new optical biometer based on swept-source optical coherence tomography and comparison with IOLMaster.基于扫频光学相干断层扫描技术的新型光学生物测量仪的可重复性和观察者间再现性及其与IOLMaster的比较
Br J Ophthalmol. 2017 Apr;101(4):493-498. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-308352. Epub 2016 Aug 8.