散光检测设备临床应用进展

doi:10.3760/cma.j.cn115909-20200914-00365

摘要
图/表
参考文献(26)
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF 9181KB HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS) 背景资料

文章导读

摘要

散光的准确测量对于角膜屈光手术设计、白内障术前规划、术后视觉质量评价、眼部疾病的诊断以

及验光配镜等具有重要的意义，散光问题因而备受关注。临床上可用于角膜曲率和形态检测的设备

种类较多，原理与特点各不相同，近年来发展较快。现笔者对近年临床上散光检测的不同设备的应

用进展进行简要综述。

	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
	刘波
	杨丽
	兰长骏
	等.

关键词 ：散光, 检测设备, 临床应用

Abstract：

Accurate measurement of astigmatism is of great significance for the design of corneal refractive surgery,

preoperative planning of cataract surgery, evaluation of postoperative visual quality, diagnosis of ocular

diseases and optometry. Therefore, astigmatism has attracted much attention. Clinically, there are many

kinds of devices that can be used for corneal curvature and morphology detection, each with different

principles and characteristics. There has been a great deal of development in the past few decades. This

article reviews the progress of astigmatism detection devices for clinical application in recent years.

Key words： astigmatism testing equipment clinical application

收稿日期: 2020-09-14

PACS:

基金资助:四川省科技厅应用基础研究项目（2019YJ0381）；四川省医学会科研课题（S20016）

通讯作者: 廖萱（ORCID：0000-0003-0097-684X），Email：aleexand@163.com

引用本文:

刘波, 杨丽, 兰长骏, 等.. 散光检测设备临床应用进展[J]. 中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志, 2021, 23(12): 956-960. Bo Liu, Li Yang, Changjun Lan, et al. Progress in the Clinical Application of Astigmatism Detection Devices. Chinese Journal of Optometry Ophthalmology and Visual science, 2021, 23(12): 956-960. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115909-20200914-00365

链接本文:

https://www.cjoovs.com/CN/10.3760/cma.j.cn115909-20200914-00365 或 https://www.cjoovs.com/CN/Y2021/V23/I12/956

[1]	Hashemi H, Fotouhi A, Yekta A, et al. Global and regionalestimates of prevalence of refractive errors: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Curr Ophthalmol, 2018, 30(1): 3-22. DOI:10.1016/j.joco.2017.08.009.
[2]	Young T. The Bakerian Lecture: On the mechanisms of the eye.1801, 91: 23-88.
[3]	Mehravaran S, Asgari S, Bigdeli S, et al. Keratometry with fivedifferent techniques: A study of device repeatability and interdevice agreement. Int Ophthalmol, 2014, 34(4): 869-875. DOI:10.1007/s10792-013-9895-3.
[4]	Dehnavi Z, Khabazkhoob M, Mirzajani A, et al. Comparison ofthe corneal power measurements with the TMS4-Topographer,pentacam HR, IOL master, and Javal keratometer. Middle EastAfr J Ophthalmol, 2015, 22(2): 233-237. DOI: 10.4103/0974-9233.151884.
[5]	Galindo-Ferreiro A, De Miguel-Gutierrez J, Gonzalez-Sagrado M,et al. Validity of autorefractor based screening method for irregular astigmatism compared to the corneal topography-across sectional study. Int J Ophthalmol, 2017, 10(9): 1412-1418.DOI: 10.18240/ijo.2017.09.14.
[6]	Hua Y, Xu Z, Qiu W, et al. Precision (repeatability andreproducibility) and agreement of corneal power measurements obtained by topcon KR-1W and iTrace. PLoS One, 2016, 11(1):e147086. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147086.
[7]	Kaur M, Shaikh F, Falera R, et al. Optimizing outcomes withtoric intraocular lenses. Indian J Ophthalmol, 2017, 65(12):1301-1313. DOI:10.4103/ijo.IJO_810_17.
[8]	Yu Q, Wu JX, Zhang HN, et al. Aberration changes of thecorneal anterior surface following discontinued use of rigid gas permeable contact lenses. Int J Ophthalmol, 2013, 6(2): 178-182. DOI: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2013.02.14.
[9]	Ommani A, Hutchings N, Thapa D, et al. Pupil scaling for theestimation of aberrations in natural pupils. Optom Vis Sci, 2014,91(10): 1175-1182. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000369.
[10]	Lebow KA, Campbell CE. A comparison of a traditional andwavefront autorefraction. Optom Vis Sci, 2014, 91(10): 1191-1198. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000378.
[11]	Putnam NM, Vasudevan B, Juarez A, et al. Comparing habitualand i. Scription refractions. BMC Ophthalmol, 2019, 19(1): 49.DOI: 10.1186/s12886-019-1053-x.
[12]	Plácido A. Novo instrumento de esploracao da cornea. Periodicod’Oftalmologia Pratica, 1880, 5: 27-30.
[13]	Fityo S, Buhren J, Shajari M, et al. Keratometry versus totalcorneal refractive power: Analysis of measurement repeatability with 5 different devices in normal eyes with low astigmatism.J Cataract Refract Surg, 2016, 42(4): 569-576. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.11.046.
[14]	Sel S, Stange J, Kaiser D, et al. Repeatability and agreementof Scheimpflug-based and swept-source optical biometry measurements. Cont Lens Anterior Eye, 2017, 40(5): 318-322.DOI: 10.1016/j.clae.2017.03.007.
[15]	Wang ZY, Yang WL, Li DJ, et al. Comparison of biometry withthe Pentacam AXL, IOLMaster 700 and IOLMaster 500 in cataract patients. Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi, 2019, 55(7): 515-521. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0412-4081.2019.07.007.
[16]	Lang PZ, Thulasi P, Khandelwal SS, et al. Comparing Change inAnterior Curvature After Corneal Cross-linking Using Scanningslit and Scheimpflug Technology. Am J Ophthalmol, 2018, 191:129-134. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2018.04.018.
[17]	Savini G, Naeser K, Schiano-Lomoriello D, et al. Total cornealastigmatism measurements: Agreement between 2 rotating sheimpflug cameras. Cornea, 2017, 36(4): 463-469. DOI:10.1097/ICO.0000000000001117.
[18]	Hashemi H, Heydarian S, Khabazkhoob M, et al. Keratometryin children: Comparison between auto-refractokeratometer,rotating scheimpflug imaging, and biograph. J Optom, 2019,12(2): 99-110. DOI: 10.1016/j.optom.2018.12.002.
[19]	Haigis W, Lege B, Miller N, et al. Comparison of immersionultrasound biometry and partial coherence interferometry for intraocular lens calculation according to Haigis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 2000, 238(9): 765-773. DOI: 10.1007/s004170000188.
[20]	Buckhurst PJ, Wolffsohn JS, Shah S, et al. A new optical lowcoherence reflectometry device for ocular biometry in cataract patients. Br J Ophthalmol, 2009, 93(7): 949-953. DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2008.156554.
[21]	Sabatino F, Matarazzo F, Findl O, et al. Comparative analysisof 2 swept-source optical coherence tomography biometers. JCataract Refract Surg, 2019, 45(8): 1124-1129. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2019.03.020.
[22]	Ortiz A, Galvis V, Tello A, et al. Comparison of three opticalbiometers: IOLMaster 500, Lenstar LS 900 and Aladdin. Int Ophthalmol, 2019, 39(8): 1809-1818. DOI: 10.1007/s10792-018-1006-z.
[23]	Ha A, Wee WR, Kim MK. Comparative efficacy of the newoptical biometer on intraocular lens power calculation (AL-Scan versus IOLMaster). Korean J Ophthalmol, 2018, 32(3): 241-248. DOI: 10.3341/kjo.2017.0063.
[24]	Hoffer KJ, Savini G. Comparison of AL-Scan and IOLMaster 500 partial coherence interferometry optical biometers. J Refract Surg, 2016, 32(10): 694-698. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20160712-03.
[25]	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.
[26]	LaHood BR, Goggin M. Measurement of posterior corneal astigmatism by the IOLMaster 700. J Refract Surg, 2018, 34(5):331-336. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20180214-02.