Spencer A F, Vernon S A
Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital, Nottingham.
Br J Ophthalmol. 1995 Oct;79(10):910-5. doi: 10.1136/bjo.79.10.910.
Two methods of indirect ophthalmoscopic estimation of optic disc size, the 78 dioptre lens and optic disc biometer were evaluated.
Twenty nine eyes of 29 patients were measured by both methods and compared with optic disc size calculated using the three planimetric corrections described by Bengtsson and Krakau.
The closest agreement with the clinical measurements was found using correction 3. There was a significant difference between both the 78 D lens (p < 0.0001) and the biometer (p = 0.0027) and the planimetric results. There was also a significant difference between the two clinical methods (p < 0.0001). Both methods showed acceptable intraobserver variation (CoV 2.45% and 3.13% respectively).
Overall, both methods give larger measurements than planimetry; the 78 D lens by 0.41 mm and the biometer by 0.15 mm. Neither method gives a satisfactory estimation of optic disc size when compared with planimetry.
评估间接检眼镜估计视盘大小的两种方法，即78屈光度透镜法和视盘生物测量仪法。
对29例患者的29只眼采用这两种方法进行测量，并与使用本特松和克拉考描述的三种平面测量校正方法计算出的视盘大小进行比较。
使用校正3时与临床测量结果的一致性最佳。78D透镜法（p<0.0001）和生物测量仪法（p=0.0027）与平面测量结果之间均存在显著差异。两种临床方法之间也存在显著差异（p<0.0001）。两种方法的观察者内变异均在可接受范围内（分别为2.45%和3.13%）。
总体而言，两种方法测得的结果均比平面测量法大；78D透镜法大0.41mm，生物测量仪法大0.15mm。与平面测量法相比，两种方法对视盘大小的估计均不令人满意。
