新型频域光学生物测量仪OA-2000与IOLMaster的比较
|
摘要
目的比较两种光学生物测量仪(OA-2000、IOLmaster)的检测率及测量参数的相关性、一致性。设计诊断试验。研究对象2017年12月北京医院眼科42例多种眼病患者(83眼)。方法对同一患者的同一眼别分别用OA-2000和IOLMaster进行眼部参数测量眼轴长度、角膜屈光度、前房深度。比较两种方法的结果差异,进行相关性分析和Bland-Altman绘图。主要指标检测率、相关系数、均值偏差。结果 OA-2000与IOLMaster测量参数的检出率分别为:眼轴长度97.6%、75.3%;角膜曲率屈光度94.0%、97.6%;前房深度95.2%、96.4%。两种测量方法眼轴长度相关系数r高达0.99,角膜屈光度相关性系数r均在0.97以上,前房深度r为0.88。根据Bland-Altman图,眼轴长度均值差(MD)为+0.01mm与均值线偏差较小;角膜屈光度MD为-0.07D,前房深度MD为+0.08,二者的MD较均值线略有上下浮动,但均落在95%置信区间内。结论新型频域生物测量仪OA-2000与IOLMaster测量参数相比较,眼轴长度的相关性和一致性最好,且OA-2000检测率较高,在屈光间质混浊的患者中具有显著优势;角膜屈光度检测率基本一致,相关性较好,平均差值OA-2000略低于IOLMaster 0.07 D;前房深度检测率基本一致,相关性略低,平均差值OA-2000略高于IOLMaster 0.08 mm。
Objective To Compare ocular biometric measurements between a new swept-source optical coherence tomography OA-2000 and IOLmaster, and evaluate the detection rate, correlation and agreement. Design Diagnostic trial. Participants A sample of 83 eyes were selected from Department of Ophthalmology Beijing Hospital during December 2017. Methods The same eye of the same patient was measured by OA-2000 and IOLMaster respectively. Axial length(AL), keratometry(K) and anterior chamber depth(ACD)were compared and draw the correlation curve and bland-altman plot to evaluate the correlation and consistency of the two methods.Main Outcome Measures The detection rate, correlative coefficient, mean difference. Results The detection rate of OA-2000 and IOLmaster on AL was 97.6%, 75.3%, respectively. The detection rate of OA-2000 and IOLmaster on keratometry was 94.0%, 97.6%, respectively. The detection rate of OA-2000 and IOLmaster on ACD was 95.2%, 96.4%, respectively. The correlation coefficient of AL between OA-2000 and IOLmaster is almost 0.99, 0.97 or more of keratometry, and 0.88 of ACD. Bland-Altman plot showed the mean difference of both methods on AL is only 0.01 mm, which is very close to the mean line. The mean difference of keratometry and ACD are more or less the mean line, but all of them are within the 95% CI. Conclusions The detection rate of new optical biometric OA-2000 on AL is significant better than IOLMaster. And the new method shows great advantage in opacity of refractive media. However,the result of corneal refraction and ACD is a little difference, which needs larger samples to observe.
Objective To Compare ocular biometric measurements between a new swept-source optical coherence tomography OA-2000 and IOLmaster, and evaluate the detection rate, correlation and agreement. Design Diagnostic trial. Participants A sample of 83 eyes were selected from Department of Ophthalmology Beijing Hospital during December 2017. Methods The same eye of the same patient was measured by OA-2000 and IOLMaster respectively. Axial length(AL), keratometry(K) and anterior chamber depth(ACD)were compared and draw the correlation curve and bland-altman plot to evaluate the correlation and consistency of the two methods.Main Outcome Measures The detection rate, correlative coefficient, mean difference. Results The detection rate of OA-2000 and IOLmaster on AL was 97.6%, 75.3%, respectively. The detection rate of OA-2000 and IOLmaster on keratometry was 94.0%, 97.6%, respectively. The detection rate of OA-2000 and IOLmaster on ACD was 95.2%, 96.4%, respectively. The correlation coefficient of AL between OA-2000 and IOLmaster is almost 0.99, 0.97 or more of keratometry, and 0.88 of ACD. Bland-Altman plot showed the mean difference of both methods on AL is only 0.01 mm, which is very close to the mean line. The mean difference of keratometry and ACD are more or less the mean line, but all of them are within the 95% CI. Conclusions The detection rate of new optical biometric OA-2000 on AL is significant better than IOLMaster. And the new method shows great advantage in opacity of refractive media. However,the result of corneal refraction and ACD is a little difference, which needs larger samples to observe.
引文
[1]Ruiz-Alcocer J,Madrid-Costa D,Garcia-Lazaro S,et al.Optical performance of two new trifocal intraocular lenses:through-focus modulation transfer function and influence of pupil size.Clin Exp Ophthalmol,2014,42(3):271-276.
[2]Raj PS,Ilango B,Watson A.Measurement of axial length in the calculation of intraocular lens power.Eye,1998,12(2):227-229.
[3]Wilson ME,Trivedi RH.Axial length measurement techniques in pediatric eyes with cataract.Saudi J Ophthalmol,2012,26(1):13-17.
[4]Eibschitz-Tsimhoni M,Tsimhoni O,Archer SM,et al.Effect of axial length and keratometry measurement error on intraocular lens implant power prediction formulas in pediatric patients.J AAPOS,2008,12(2):173-176.
[5]Santodomingo-Rubido J,Mallen EA,Gilmartin B,et al.A new non-contact optical device for ocular biometry.Br J Ophthalmol,2002,86(4):458-462.
[6]Carl Zeiss Meditec AG,Jena.IOLMaster 500,2013.
[7]Huang J,Savini G,Hoffer KJ,et al.Repeatability and interobserver reproducibility of a new optical biometer based on swept-source optical coherence tomography and comparison with IOLMaster.Br J Ophthalmol,2017,101(4):493-498.
[8]Gao R,Chen H,Savini G,et al.Comparison of ocular biometric measurements between a new swept-source optical coherence tomography and a common optical low coherence reflectometry.Science Reports,2017,7(1):2484.
[9]Giavarina D.Understanding Bland Altman analysis.Biochemia Medica,2015,25(2):141-151.
[10]Kunert KS,Peter M,Blum M,et al.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.J Cataract Refract Surg,2016,42(1):76-83.
[11]Ventura BV,Ventura MC,Wang L,et al.Comparison of biometry and intraocular lens power calculation performed by a new optical biometry device and a reference biometer.J Cataract Refract Surg,2017,43(1):74-79.
[12]Jeong J,Song H,Lee JK,et al.The effect of ocular biometric factors on the accuracy of various IOL power calculation formulas.BMC Ophthalmol,2017,17(1):62.
[13]Pierro L,Modorati G,Brancato R.Clinical variability in keratometry,ultrasound biometry measurements,and emmetropic intraocular lens power calculation.J Cataract Refract Surg,1991,17(1):91-94.
[14]Goebels S,Pattm?ller M,Eppig T,et al.Comparison of 3 biometry devices in cataract patients.J Cataract Refract Surg,2015,41(11):2387-2393.
[15]Kongsap P.Comparison of a new optical biometer and a standard biometer in cataract patients.Eye Vis(Lond),2016,3:27.
[2]Raj PS,Ilango B,Watson A.Measurement of axial length in the calculation of intraocular lens power.Eye,1998,12(2):227-229.
[3]Wilson ME,Trivedi RH.Axial length measurement techniques in pediatric eyes with cataract.Saudi J Ophthalmol,2012,26(1):13-17.
[4]Eibschitz-Tsimhoni M,Tsimhoni O,Archer SM,et al.Effect of axial length and keratometry measurement error on intraocular lens implant power prediction formulas in pediatric patients.J AAPOS,2008,12(2):173-176.
[5]Santodomingo-Rubido J,Mallen EA,Gilmartin B,et al.A new non-contact optical device for ocular biometry.Br J Ophthalmol,2002,86(4):458-462.
[6]Carl Zeiss Meditec AG,Jena.IOLMaster 500,2013.
[7]Huang J,Savini G,Hoffer KJ,et al.Repeatability and interobserver reproducibility of a new optical biometer based on swept-source optical coherence tomography and comparison with IOLMaster.Br J Ophthalmol,2017,101(4):493-498.
[8]Gao R,Chen H,Savini G,et al.Comparison of ocular biometric measurements between a new swept-source optical coherence tomography and a common optical low coherence reflectometry.Science Reports,2017,7(1):2484.
[9]Giavarina D.Understanding Bland Altman analysis.Biochemia Medica,2015,25(2):141-151.
[10]Kunert KS,Peter M,Blum M,et al.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.J Cataract Refract Surg,2016,42(1):76-83.
[11]Ventura BV,Ventura MC,Wang L,et al.Comparison of biometry and intraocular lens power calculation performed by a new optical biometry device and a reference biometer.J Cataract Refract Surg,2017,43(1):74-79.
[12]Jeong J,Song H,Lee JK,et al.The effect of ocular biometric factors on the accuracy of various IOL power calculation formulas.BMC Ophthalmol,2017,17(1):62.
[13]Pierro L,Modorati G,Brancato R.Clinical variability in keratometry,ultrasound biometry measurements,and emmetropic intraocular lens power calculation.J Cataract Refract Surg,1991,17(1):91-94.
[14]Goebels S,Pattm?ller M,Eppig T,et al.Comparison of 3 biometry devices in cataract patients.J Cataract Refract Surg,2015,41(11):2387-2393.
[15]Kongsap P.Comparison of a new optical biometer and a standard biometer in cataract patients.Eye Vis(Lond),2016,3:27.