OA-2000与IOLMaster 500、A型超声测量白内障眼部生物学参数的比较

doi:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-845X.2019.05.009

摘要
图/表
参考文献(10)
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF 324KB HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要

目的：比较最新的OA-2000光学生物测量仪与广泛应用的IOLMaster 500、A型超声测量白内障眼生物学参数的一致性。方法：系列病例研究。选取2018年5-6月内蒙古医科大学附属医院眼科确诊为年龄相关性白内障的患者152例（152眼），对所有患者依次采用OA-2000、IOLMaster 500、A 型超声波（A超）这3 种设备进行检查，获取眼轴长度（AL）、角膜曲率（Ks、Kf）、中央前房深度（ACD）、角膜横径（W-W）、中央角膜厚度（CCT）、晶状体厚度（LT）和人工晶状体（IOL）度数等参数。数据采用方差分析、Pearson相关分析及Bland-Altamn法进行分析。结果：①OA-2000、IOLMaster 500、A超对AL和ACD的检出率分别为97.3%、78.2%、100%和99.3%、97.3%、100%；OA-2000、 IOLMaster 500对Ks/Kf的检出率为99.3%、98.6%；对W-W的检出率为97.3%、94.7%。其中高度近视伴后巩膜葡萄肿且AL≥26 mm的17眼中，OA-2000、IOLMaster 500、A超对AL的检出率分别为 88%（15/17）、65%（11/17）、100%（17/17）。②3种设备间测得的AL、ACD总体差异有统计学意义（F=12.63，P=0.02；F=10.57，P=0.01），其中OA-2000和IOLMaster 500测得的AL、ACD参数结果差异无统计学意义，A超与其他2种设备测得的AL、ACD差异均有统计学意义（P<0.001）；OA-2000和 IOLMaster 500测得的Ks/Kf、IOL、W-W参数差异均无统计学意义。③3种设备对AL测量的平均差值：OA-2000和IOLMaster 500为0.03 mm，OA-2000和A超为0.13 mm；3种设备对AL≥26 mm的AL 测量的平均差值：OA-2000和IOLMaster 500为0.06 mm，OA-2000和A超为0.43 mm。④Pearson相关性分析显示OA-2000和IOLMaster 500在AL测量结果中具有较高的相关性（r=0.78，P=0.02）。⑤通过Bland-Altamn法对各设备的AL数据进行一致性分析，结果显示在95%的一致性范围内一致性良好。结论：OA-2000、IOLMaster 500、A超在白内障患眼中的眼部生物测量结果无差异，但OA-2000 对AL的检出率明显高于IOLMaster 500，同时在高度近视伴后巩膜葡萄肿的AL测量中，OA-2000测量的精确性及可靠性更高。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章

关键词 ： OA-2000, IOLMaster 500, A型超声, 白内障, 眼部生物测量

Abstract：

Objective: To compare the consistency of OA-2000 with IOLMaster 500 and A-scan for biologicalmeasurements. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the measurements of OA-2000 in preoperative examinations of cataract patients. Methods: In this case series study, a total of 152 patients (152 eyes) diagnosed with age-related cataract were selected at the Affiliated Hospital of Nei Mongol Medical University from May to June 2018. All the patients were examined in turn by OA-2000, IOLMaster 500 and A-scan. Measurements by these three instruments were compared for axial length (AL), Ks/Kf, anterior chamber depth (ACD), white-to-white (W-W), lens thickness (LT) and intraocular lens (IOL) dioptor. The results were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance, Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman. Results: ①The detection rates of AL and ACD with OA-2000, IOLMaster 500, and A-scan were 97.3%, 78.2%, 100%, and 99.3%, 97.3%, 100%, respectively. The detection rates of Ks/Kf with OA-2000 and IOLMaster 500 were 99.3% and 98.6%. The detection rates of W-W with OA-2000 and IOLMaster 500 were 97.3% and 94.7%. Among them, 17 eyes had high myopia, posterior scleral grape swelling and an axial length≥26 mm. The detection rates of AL with OA-2000, IOLMaster 500 and A-scan were 88% (15/17), 65% (11/17), and 100% (17/17). ②There was a significant difference in AL and ACD between the three instruments (F=12.63, P=0.02; F=10.57, P=0.01). The AL, ACD parameters measured by OA-2000 and IOLMaster 500 were not significantly different. There were significant differences in AL and ACD between A-scan and the other two instruments (P<0.001). There were no significant differences in Ks/Kf, IOL or W-W parameters among the three instruments. ③The average difference in AL measurements between OA-2000 and IOLmaster 500 was 0.03 mm, between OA-2000 and A-scan was 0.13 mm. The average difference between the three instruments for AL measurements with an axial length≥26 mm: OA-2000 and IOLmaster 500 was 0.06 mm; OA-2000 and A-scan was 0.43 mm. ④A Pearson correlation analysis showed that there was a high correlation between the measured results of OA-2000 and IOLMaster 500 (r=0.78, P=0.02). ⑤The consistency of AL results using Bland-Altamn analysis showed that there was good consistency in the range of 95% consistency. Conclusion: There was a high consistency in ocular biological measurements between the three instruments in cataract eyes. However, the detection rate of OA-2000 in AL was significantly higher than that of IOLMaster 500, and the accuracy of the OA-2000 measurement was obviously higher in the AL measurement in high myopia with posterior staphyloma.

Key words：

OA-2000 IOLmaster 500 A-scan cataract ocular biological measurementOLmaster 500 A-scan cataract ocular biological measurement

收稿日期: 2018-09-26

通讯作者: 王岩（ORCID：0000-0002-5499-3867），Email：fywy111@163.com

引用本文:

崇晓霞王岩王盼云慧. OA-2000与IOLMaster 500、A型超声测量白内障眼部生物学参数的比较[J]. 中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志, 2019, 21(5): 370-374. Xiaoxia Chong, Yan Wang, Pan Wang, Hui Yun. Comparison of Ocular Biometric Measurement with OA-2000, IOLMaster 500 and A-Scan in Cataract Patients. Chinese Journal of Optometry Ophthalmology and Visual science, 2019, 21(5): 370-374. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-845X.2019.05.009

链接本文:

https://www.cjoovs.com/CN/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-845X.2019.05.009 或 https://www.cjoovs.com/CN/Y2019/V21/I5/370

[1]	Kaswin G, Rousseau A, Mgarrech M, et al. Biometry and intraocular lens power calculation results with a new optical biometry device: comparison with the gold standard. J Cataract
	Refract Surg, 2014, 40(4): 593-600. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2013. 09.015.
[2]	吴宇博, 刘颂玉, 廖荣丰. 不同生物测量方法下人工晶状体计算公式的预测准确性.中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志, 2017, 19(6): 376-382. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-845X.2017.06.
	011.
[3]	Devereux J, Foster P, Baasanhu J, et al. Anterior chamber depth measurement as a screening tool for primary angle-closure glaucoma in an East Asian population. Arch Ophthalmol, 2000, 118(2): 257-263. DOI: 10.1001/archopht.118.2.257.
[4]	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. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs. 2015.07.039.
[5]	Li J, Chen H, Savini G, et al. Measurement agreement between a new biometer based on partial coherence interferometry and a validated biometer based on optical low-coherence
	reflectometry. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2016, 42(1): 68-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.05.042.
[6]	Rozema JJ, Wouters K, Mathysen DG, et al. Overview of the repeatability, reproducibility, and agreement of the biometry values provided by various ophthalmic devices. Am J
	Ophthalmol, 2014, 158(6): 1111-1120.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo. 2014.08.014.
[7]	Ireneusz G, Jonathan J Liu, Zhang Jason Y, et al. Reproducibility of a Long-Range Swept-Source OpticalCoherence Tomography Ocular Biometry System and Comparison with Clinical Biometers. Ophthalmology, 2013, 120(11): 2184-2191. DOI: 10. 1016/j.ophtha.2013.04.007.
[8]	Chen W, McAlinden C, Pesudovs K, et al. Scheimpflug-Placido topographer and optical low-coherence reflectometry biometer: repeatability and agreement. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2012, 38(9): 1626-1632. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.04.031.
[9]	McAlinden C, Wang Q, Gao R, et al. Axial length measurement failure rates with biometers using swept source optical coherence tomography compared to partial coherence interferometry and optical low-coherence interferometry. Am J Ophthalmol, 2017, 173: 64-69. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2016.09.019.
[10]	Cruysberg LP, Doors M, Verbakel F, et al. Evaluation of the Lenstar LS 900 non-contact biometer. Br J Ophthalmol, 2010, 94(1): 106-110. DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2009.161729.