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。
Technical failure rates for biometry between swept-source and older-generation optical coherence methods: a review and meta-analysis.
机构信息
Department of Ophthalmology, Hygeia Clinic, ul. Jaśkowa Dolina 57, Gdańsk, 80-286, Poland.
Helsinki Retina Research Group, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
出版信息
BMC Ophthalmol. 2023 Apr 26;23(1):182. doi: 10.1186/s12886-023-02926-0.
PURPOSE
Precise ocular measurements are fundamental for achieving excellent target refraction following both cataract surgery and refractive lens exchange. Biometry devices with swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) employ longer wavelengths (1055-1300 nm) in order to have better penetration through opaque lenses than those with partial coherence interferometry (PCI) or low-coherence optical reflectometry (LCOR) methods. However, to date a pooled analysis showing the technical failure rate (TFR) between the methods has not been published. The aim of this study was to compare the TFR in SS-OCT and in PCI/LCOR biometry.
METHODS
PubMed and Scopus were used to search the medical literature as of Feb 1, 2022. The following keywords were used in various combinations: optical biometry, partial coherence interferometry, low-coherence optical reflectometry, swept-source optical coherence tomography. Only clinical studies referring to patients undergoing routine cataract surgery, and employing at least two (PCI or LCOR vs. SS-OCT) optical methods for optical biometry in the same cohort of patients were included.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies were included in the final analysis, which presented results of 2,459 eyes of at least 1,853 patients. The overall TFR of all included studies was 5.47% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.66-8.08%; overall I = 91.49%). The TFR was significantly different among the three methods (p < 0.001): 15.72% for PCI (95% CI: 10.73-22.46%; I = 99.62%), 6.88% for LCOR (95% CI: 3.26-13.92%; I = 86.44%), and 1.51% for SS-OCT (95% CI: 0.94-2.41%; I = 24.64%). The pooled TFR for infrared methods (PCI and LCOR) was 11.12% (95% CI: 8.45-14.52%; I = 78.28%), and was also significantly different to that of SS-OCT: 1.51% (95% CI: 0.94-2.41%; I = 24.64%; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
A meta-analysis of the TFR of different biometry methods highlighted that SS-OCT biometry resulted in significantly decreased TFR compared to PCI/LCOR devices.
目的
在白内障手术和屈光性晶状体置换术后，精确的眼部测量对于获得理想的目标屈光度至关重要。与部分相干干涉测量法（PCI）或低相干光反射测量法（LCOR）相比，采用扫频源光学相干断层扫描（SS-OCT）的生物测量仪使用更长的波长（1055-1300nm），因此能够更好地穿透不透明的晶状体。然而，迄今为止，尚无关于这些方法之间技术故障率（TFR）的汇总分析。本研究旨在比较 SS-OCT 和 PCI/LCOR 生物测量仪的 TFR。
方法
截至 2022 年 2 月 1 日，使用 PubMed 和 Scopus 搜索医学文献。使用了各种组合的以下关键字：光学生物测量学、部分相干干涉测量法、低相干光反射测量法、扫频源光学相干断层扫描。仅纳入了涉及接受常规白内障手术的患者的临床研究，并在同一患者队列中使用了至少两种（PCI 或 LCOR 与 SS-OCT）光学方法进行光学生物测量的研究。
结果
最终分析纳入了 14 项研究，这些研究共涉及 2459 只眼，至少 1853 例患者。所有纳入研究的总体 TFR 为 5.47%（95%置信区间：3.66-8.08%；总体 I=91.49%）。三种方法的 TFR 差异有统计学意义（p<0.001）：PCI 的 TFR 为 15.72%（95%置信区间：10.73-22.46%；I=99.62%），LCOR 的 TFR 为 6.88%（95%置信区间：3.26-13.92%；I=86.44%），SS-OCT 的 TFR 为 1.51%（95%置信区间：0.94-2.41%；I=24.64%）。红外方法（PCI 和 LCOR）的汇总 TFR 为 11.12%（95%置信区间：8.45-14.52%；I=78.28%），与 SS-OCT 的 TFR 差异也有统计学意义：1.51%（95%置信区间：0.94-2.41%；I=24.64%；p<0.001）。
结论
对不同生物测量方法 TFR 的荟萃分析表明，与 PCI/LCOR 设备相比，SS-OCT 生物测量法导致 TFR 显著降低。
Zotero 插件