新型扫频生物测量仪OA-2000与IOLMaster 700 测量高度近视白内障患者的一致性

doi:10.3760/cma.j.cn115909-20210615-00242

摘要
图/表
参考文献(27)
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF 773KB HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS) 背景资料

文章导读

摘要目的：比较OA-2000与IOLMaster 700在高度近视白内障患者生物测量中的一致性。方法：系列病例研究。选择2018年1─2月于北京同仁眼科中心拟行白内障手术的高度近视患者119例（119眼）。分别应用OA-2000和IOLMaster 700进行生物测量，获得角膜厚度（CCT）、前房深度（ACD）、晶状体厚度（LT）、眼轴长度（AL）、角膜曲率（Kf和Ks）、散光及轴向、平均角膜曲率（Km）、角膜横径（WTW）等数据，并通过矢量计算公式计算散光矢量J0和J45，通过Barrett Universal Ⅱ公式计算人工晶状体（IOL）度数。2种仪器测量参数及IOL度数差异比较采用配对t检验，一致性评估采用组内相关系数（ICC）及Bland-Altman法。结果：2种仪器测量Kf、Ks、Km、J0、J45、AL及IOL度数计算结果的差异均无统计学意义，测量CCT、ACD、LT及WTW差异均有统计学意义（t=-29.95、5.00、12.25、-5.56，均 P<0.001）。2种仪器各测量参数及IOL度数计算结果的ICC为0.88～1.00。Bland-Altman分析显示2种仪器测量Kf、Ks、Km、J0、J45、CCT、ACD、LT、AL、WTW及IOL度数95%一致性界限（LoA）最大绝对值分别为：0.37 D、0.41 D、0.32 D、0.27 D、0.25 D、32.6 μm、0.08 mm、0.18 mm、0.13 mm、 0.73 mm及0.53 D。结论：在高度近视白内障患者中，OA-2000和IOLMaster 700测量Kf、Ks、Km、 J0、J45、ACD、LT、AL的一致性好。2种仪器测量参数通过Barrett Universal Ⅱ公式计算的IOL度数同样具有较好的一致性，可以相互替换使用。

	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
	李栋军
	杨文利
	王子杨
	等

关键词 ：生物测量, IOLMaster 700, OA-2000, 高度近视, 白内障

Abstract：Objective: To compare the agreement between OA-2000 and IOLMaster 700 in cataract patients with high myopia. Methods: This was a serial case study. Patients referred for cataract surgery were measured by IOLMaster 700 and OA-2000 between January and February 2018 in the Beijing Tongren Eye Center. One hundred nineteen patients (119 eyes) were enrolled. The parameters, including keratometry for the flattest meridian (Kf), keratometry for the steepest meridian (Ks), mean keratometry (Km), J0 (Jackson crosscylinder with axes at 180 degrees and 90 degrees), J45 (Jackson cross-cylinder with axes at 45 degrees and 135 degrees), corneal diameter (WTW), central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT) and axial length (AL) were obtained and intraocular lens (IOL) power was calculated with the Barrett Universal Ⅱ formula. A paired samples t test was used to compare the differences in the parameters and IOL power between the two biometers. Agreement was evaluated using an interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis. Results: There were significant differences between the two biometers for CCT, ACD, LT, WTW (t=-29.95, 5.00, 12.25, -5.56, P<0.001), but not for Kf, Ks, Km, J0, J45, AL or IOL power. Intraclass correlation ranged from 0.878 to 1.000. Bland-Altman analysis showed that the maximum absolute values of the 95% limits of agreement (LoA) of Kf, Ks, Km, J0, J45, CCT, ACD, LT, AL, WTW and IOL power were 0.37 D, 0.41 D, 0.32 D, 0.27 D, 0.25 D, 32.6 μm, 0.08 mm, 0.18 mm, 0.13 mm, 0.73 mm and 0.53 D, respectively. Conclusions: For cataract patients with high myopia, IOLMaster 700 and OA-2000 show good agreement in measuring Kf, Ks, Km, J0, J45, ACD, LT and AL. There was also good agreement in calculating IOL power by the Barrett Universal Ⅱ formula, which could be used interchangeably.

Key words： biometry IOLMaster 700 OA-2000 high myopia catarac

收稿日期: 2021-06-15

PACS:

基金资助:

通讯作者: 杨文利（ORCID：0000-0001-7441-8977），Email：yangwl_tr@163.com

引用本文:

李栋军, 杨文利, 王子杨, 等. 新型扫频生物测量仪OA-2000与IOLMaster 700 测量高度近视白内障患者的一致性[J]. 中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志, 2022, 24(1): 40-45. Dongjun Li, Wenli Yang, Ziyang Wang,et al. Comparison of the Agreement between OA-2000 and IOLMaster 700 in Cataract Patients with High Myopia. Chinese Journal of Optometry Ophthalmology and Visual science, 2022, 24(1): 40-45. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115909-20210615-00242

链接本文:

https://www.cjoovs.com/CN/10.3760/cma.j.cn115909-20210615-00242 或 https://www.cjoovs.com/CN/Y2022/V24/I1/40

[1]	Rajan MS, Keilhorn I, Bell JA. Partial coherence laser interferometry vs conventional ultrasound biometry in intraocular lens power calculations. Eye (Lond), 2002, 16(5):552-556. DOI: 10.1038/sj.eye.6700157.
[2]	Connors R, Boseman P, Olson RJ. Accuracy and reproducibility of biometry using partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract
	Refract Surg, 2002, 28(2): 235-238. DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(01)01179-8.
[3]	Akman A, Asena L, Güngör SG. Evaluation and comparison of the new swept source OCT-based IOLMaster 700 with the
	IOLMaster 500. Br J Ophthalmol, 2016, 100(9): 1201-1205.DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-307779.
[4]	Srivannaboon S, Chirapapaisan C, Chonpimai P, et al.Clinical comparison of a new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer and a time-domain optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2015, 41(10): 2224-2232. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.03.019.
[5]	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. DOI:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-308352.
[6]	Yang JY, Kim HK, Kim SS. Axial length measurements:Comparison of a new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometer and partial coherence interferometry in myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2017, 43(3): 328-332. DOI:10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.12.023.
[7]	Wang L, Shirayama M, Ma XJ, et al. Optimizing intraocular lens power calculations in eyes with axial lengths above 25.0 mm. J
	Cataract Refract Surg, 2011, 37(11): 2018-2027. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.05.042.
[8]	Thibos LN, Wheeler W, Horner D. Power vectors: an application of Fourier analysis to the description and statistical analysis of
	refractive error. Optom Vis Sci, 1997, 74(6): 367-375. DOI:10.1097/00006324-199706000-00019.
[9]	Melles RB, Holladay JT, Chang WJ. Accuracy of intraocular lens calculation formulas. Ophthalmology, 2018, 125(2): 169-178. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.08.027.
[10]	Olsen T. Calculation of intraocular lens power: a review. Acta Ophthalmol Scand, 2007, 85(5): 472-485. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-
04	20.2007.00879.x.
[11]	Kongsap P. Comparison of a new optical biometer and a standard biometer in cataract patients. Eye Vis (Lond), 2016,3:27. DOI: 10.1186/s40662-016-0059-1.
[12]	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.Sci Rep, 2017, 7(1): 2484. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-02463-z.
[13]	Lu W, Li Y, Savini G, et al. Comparison of anterior segment measurements obtained using a swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer and a Scheimpflug-Placido tomographer.J Cataract Refract Surg, 2019, 45(3): 298-304. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.10.033.
[14]	Mehdizadeh M. Effect of axial length and keratometry measurement error on intraocular lens implant power prediction formulas in pediatric patients. J AAPOS, 2008, 12(4): 425-426.DOI: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2008.05.007.
[15]	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.
[16]	Reitblat O, Levy A, Kleinmann G, et al. Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation using three optical biometry measurement
	devices: The OA-2000, Lenstar-LS900 and IOLMaster-500. Eye(Lond), 2018, 32(7): 1244-1252. DOI: 10.1038/s41433-018-0063-x.
[17]	Tognetto D, Pastore MR, De Giacinto C, et al. Swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer as screening strategy for
	macular disease in patients scheduled for cataract surgery. Sci Rep, 2019, 9(1): 9912. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-46243-3.
[18]	Olsen T. Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation.J Cataract Refract Surg, 1992, 18(2): 125-129. DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(13)80917-0.
[19]	Liao X, Peng Y, Liu B, et al. Agreement of ocular biometric measurements in young healthy eyes between IOLMaster 700 and OA-2000. Sci Rep, 2020, 10(1): 3134. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-59919-y.
[20]	Norrby S. Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation.J Cataract Refract Surg, 2008, 34(3): 368-376. DOI: 10.1016/
	j.jcrs.2007.10.031.
[21]	Guo XX, You R, Li SS, et al. Comparison of ocular parameters of two biometric measurement devices in highly myopic eyes.
	Int J Ophthalmol, 2019, 12(10): 1548-1554. DOI: 10.18240/ijo.2019.10.05.
[22]	Shu B, Bao F, Savini G, et al. Effect of orthokeratology on precision and agreement assessment of a new swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer. Eye Vis (Lond), 2020,7:13. DOI: 10.1186/s40662-020-00177-4.
[23]	Shammas HJ, Ortiz S, Shammas MC, et al. Biometry measurements using a new large-coherence-length swept-source optical coherence tomographer. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2016,42(1): 50-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.07.042.
[24]	赵于渔, 陈中幸, 泮璐婷, 等. 散瞳对IOLMaster 700 和OA-2000测量白内障患者眼球生物结构参数的影响. 中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志, 2019, 21(7):481-487. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-845X.2019.07.001.
[25]	Chan T, Wan KH, Tang FY, et al. Repeatability and agreement of a swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometer
	IOLMaster 700 versus a Scheimpflug imaging-based biometerAL-Scan in cataract patients. Eye Contact Lens, 2020, 46(1):35-45. DOI: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000603.
[26]	Omoto MK, Torii H, Masui S, et al. Ocular biometry and refractive outcomes using two swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometers with segmental or equivalent refractive indices. Sci Rep, 2019, 9(1): 6557. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-42968-3.
[27]	Kuthirummal N, Vanathi M, Mukhija R, et al. Evaluation of Barrett universal II formula for intraocular lens power calculation in Asian Indian population. Indian J Ophthalmol,2020, 68(1): 59-64. DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_600_19.