Li Yan, Li Hong-Xun, Liu Yang-Chen, Guo Ya-Tu, Gao Jian-Min, Wu Bin, Zhang Nan, Liu Dong, Yuan Xiao-Yong
Tianjin Medical University Clinical College of Ophthalmology, Tianjin Eye Hospital, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Tianjin 300020, China.
Int J Ophthalmol. 2018 Jun 18;11(6):966-969. doi: 10.18240/ijo.2018.06.11. eCollection 2018.
To compare the results of axial length (AL) biometry in cataract eyes by three methods: immersion B-ultrasound (IB) biometry, immersion A-ultrasound (IA) biometry and optical low coherence reflectometry.
In this prospective observational study of eyes with cataract AL measurements were performed using immersion ultrasound and optical low coherence reflectometry device. The results were evaluated using Bland-Altman analyses. The differences between both methods were assessed using the paired -test, and its correlation was evaluated by Pearson coefficient.
Eighty eyes of 80 patients (39 men and 41 women) for cataract surgery were included in the study. The values of AL could be got from all 80 eyes by IB and IA, the difference of AL measurements between IA and IB was of no statistical significance (=0.97); the mean difference in AL measurements was -0.031 mm (=0.26; 95%CI, -0.09 to 0.02); linear regression showed an excellent correlation (=0.98, <0.0001). Forty-five of eighty eyes with results of AL measurements, which can be obtained by three methods; the difference of AL measurements was of no statistical significance (IA IB, =0.18; IA Lenstar, =0.51; IB Lenstar, =0.07); linear regression showed an excellent correlation (IA IB, =0.99; IA Lenstar, =0.96; IB Lenstar, =0.96); Bland-Altman analysis also showed good agreement between the two methods [IA IB, 95% limits of agreement (LoA), -0.36 to 0.28 mm; IA Lenstar, 95% LoA, -0.65 to 0.69 mm; IB Lenstar, 95% LoA, -0.55 to 0.68 mm].
Measurements with the optical low coherence reflectometry correlated well with IB and IA. In the eyes with serious refractive medium opacity, the measurements of AL could not be achieved or existed deviations when using optical low coherence reflectometry device. Under such circumstances, we should choose IA or IB as the optimization method to obtain measurements, in order to get much more accurate results.
比较三种方法测量白内障患者眼轴长度（AL）的结果，这三种方法分别为浸没式B超（IB）生物测量法、浸没式A超（IA）生物测量法和光学低相干反射测量法。
在这项针对白内障患者眼睛的前瞻性观察研究中，使用浸没式超声和光学低相干反射测量设备测量AL。采用Bland-Altman分析评估结果。使用配对t检验评估两种方法之间的差异，并通过Pearson系数评估其相关性。
本研究纳入了80例拟行白内障手术患者的80只眼睛（39例男性和41例女性）。通过IB和IA可从所有80只眼中获得AL值，IA和IB测量的AL差异无统计学意义（P = 0.97）；AL测量的平均差异为-0.031mm（P = 0.26；95%CI，-0.09至0.02）；线性回归显示出极好的相关性（r = 0.98，P < 0.0001）。80只眼中有45只眼的AL测量结果可通过三种方法获得；AL测量差异无统计学意义（IA与IB比较，P = 0.18；IA与Lenstar比较，P = 0.51；IB与Lenstar比较，P = 0.07）；线性回归显示出极好的相关性（IA与IB比较，r = 0.99；IA与Lenstar比较，r = 0.96；IB与Lenstar比较，r = 0.96）；Bland-Altman分析也显示两种方法之间具有良好的一致性[IA与IB比较，95%一致性界限（LoA），-0.36至0.28mm；IA与Lenstar比较，95%LoA，-0.65至0.69mm；IB与Lenstar比较，95%LoA，-0.55至0.68mm]。
光学低相干反射测量法与IB和IA测量结果相关性良好。在屈光介质严重混浊的眼中，使用光学低相干反射测量设备时无法获得AL测量值或存在偏差。在这种情况下，应选择IA或IB作为优化方法来获取测量值，以获得更准确的结果。
