Corvis ST与常用眼压计及角膜测厚仪在测量眼压及角膜厚度中的应用

doi:10.3760/cma.j.cn115909-20210908-00370

摘要
图/表
参考文献(24)
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF 1676KB HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS) 背景资料

文章导读

摘要目的：比较可视化角膜生物力学分析仪（Corvis ST）与三维眼前节分析仪（Pentacam）、非接触式眼压计（NCT）、A型超声角膜测厚仪（A超）、光学生物眼科测量仪（Lenstar）在测量眼压及中央角膜厚度的差异。方法：前瞻性研究。纳入2020年8—12月佛山市第二人民医院屈光术前近视患者110 例，将Corvis ST 眼压（IOP）及校正眼压（BIOP）、NCT眼压与Pentacam对NCT的校正眼压纳入眼压指标；将Corvis ST的中央角膜厚度、Pentacam的最薄点中央角膜厚度、Lenstar的角膜厚度、A超的角膜厚度纳入角膜厚度指标。眼压与角膜厚度的差异对比采用单因素方差分析法，相关性分析采用Pearson方法，一致性检验采用Bland-Altman。结果：眼压：Corvis ST分别与NCT、Pentacam所测量的眼压值在组间比较差异无统计学意义，其中Corvis ST分别与NCT、Pentacam测量的眼压值比较差异有统计学意义（P=0.019; P=0.03）。IOP与NCT眼压、Pentacam校正眼压呈正相关性（r=0.76, P ＜0.001; r=0.65, P＜0.001），BIOP与NCT眼压、Pentacam校正眼压呈正相关性（r=0.66, P＜0.001; r=0.69, P＜0.001），IOP与BIOP呈高度正相关性（r=0.92, P＜0.001）。IOP与NCT眼压、Pentacam校正眼压、BIOP的95%一致性界限与最大差值绝对值分别为（-2.8~4.3 mmHg, 3.8 mmHg）、（-3.1~4.5 mmHg, 4.1 mmHg）、（-1.46~1.97 mmHg, 1.9 mmHg），BIOP与NCT眼压、Pentacam校正眼压的95%一致性界限与最大差值绝对值分别为（-3.6~4.6 mmHg, 4.2 mmHg）、（-3.0~3.9 mmHg, 3.4 mmHg）。中央角膜厚度：Corvis ST与A超、Lenstar、Pentacam所测量的中央角膜厚度值在组间比较差异有统计学意义（F=2.67, P=0.046），其中Corvis ST与A超的差异有统计学意义（P=0.017）。Corvis ST与A超、 Lenstar、Pentacam所测量的中央角膜厚度值存在着高度正相关性（r=0.96, P＜0.001; r=0.98, P＜0.001; r=0.98, P＜0.001）。Corvis ST与A超、Lenstar、Pentacam对中央角膜厚度的测量值的95%一致性界限与最大差值绝对值分别为（-5.9~24.3 μm, 23 μm）、（-6.4~18.7 μm, 18 μm）、（-10.7~12 μm, 11 μm）。结论：Corvis ST的眼压测量值与NCT、Pentacam不可相互替代，并且Corvis ST的BIOP更接近真实眼压； Corvis ST的CCT测量值与A超、Lenstar不可相互替代，与Pentacam可相互替代。

	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
	黎长金
	李雪
	陆强.

关键词 ：可视化角膜生物力学分析仪, 三维眼前节分析仪, 眼压, 中央角膜厚度

Abstract：Objective: To compare the difference, correlation and consistency of intraocular pressure and central corneal thickness measured by visual corneal biomechanical analyzer (Corvis ST), three-dimensional anterior segment analyzer (Pentacam), non-contact tonometer (NCT), A ultrasound pachymetry(A-ultrasound) and optical biological ophthalmic measuring instrument (Lenstar). Methods: In this prospective study, 110 patients with myopia before refractive surgery in Foshan Second People's Hospital from August to December 2020 were included. Corvis ST intraocular pressure (IOP) and Biomechanical intraocular pressure (BIOP), NCT intraocular pressure and Pentacam corrected intraocular pressure for NCT were included in the intraocular pressure index; the central corneal thickness of Corvis ST, the central corneal thickness of the thinnest point of Pentacam, corneal thickness of Lenstar and corneal thickness of A-ultrasound were included in the corneal thickness index. The difference between intraocular pressure and corneal thickness were compared by One-way ANOVA, Pearson method was used for correlation analysis, and Bland-Altman was used for consistency test. Results: IOP: There was no significant difference in intraocular pressure measured by Corvis ST, NCT and Pentacam between the groups, among them, the difference of intraocular pressure measured by Corvis ST, NCT and Pentacam was statistically significant(P=0.019; P=0.03). IOP was positively correlated with intraocular pressure of NCT and corrected intraocular pressure of Pentacam(r=0.76, P<0.001; r=0.65, P<0.001), BIOP was positively correlated with intraocular pressure of NCT and corrected intraocular pressure of Pentacam (r=0.66, P<0.001; r=0.69, P<0.001), IOP was highly positively correlated with BIOP (r=0.92, P<0.001); the absolute value of 95% consistency limit and maximum difference between IOP and NCT intraocular pressure, Pentacam corrected intraocular pressure and BIOP were (-2.8-4.3 mmHg, 3.8 mmHg), (-3.1-4.5 mmHg, 4.1 mmHg), (-1.46-1.97 mmHg, 1.9 mmHg), the absolute value of 95% consistency limit and maximum difference between BIOP and NCT intraocular pressure and Pentacam corrected intraocular pressure were (-3.6- 4.6 mmHg, 4.2 mmHg), (-3.0-3.9 mmHg, 3.4 mmHg). Central corneal thickness: There was significant difference between Corvis ST and A-ultrasound, Lenstar and Pentacam (F=2.67, P=0.046), and there was significant difference between Corvis ST and A-ultrasound (P=0.017); There was a high positive correlation between Corvis ST and central corneal thickness measured by A-ultrasound, Lenstar and Pentacam (r=0.96, P<0.001; r=0.98, P<0.001, r=0.98, P<0.001). The 95% consistency limit and the absolute value of the maximum difference of the central corneal thickness measured by Corvis ST, A-ultrasound, Lenstar and Pentacam were(-5.9~24.3 μm, 23 μm), (-6.4~18.7 μm, 18 μm), (-10.7~12 μm, 11 μm). Conclusions: The intraocular pressure measured by Corvis ST can not be replaced by NCT and Pentacam, and the BIOP of Corvis ST is closer to the real intraocular pressure; the CCT measured value of Corvis ST can not be replaced with A-ultrasound and Lenstar, and it can be replaced with Pentacam

Key words： Corvis Scheimpflug technology Pentecam intraocular pressure central corneal thickness

收稿日期: 2021-09-08

PACS:

基金资助:

通讯作者: 黎长金（ORCID: 0000-0002-3167-5663），Email：fsey_changjin@126.com

引用本文:

黎长金, 李雪, 陆强.. Corvis ST与常用眼压计及角膜测厚仪在测量眼压及角膜厚度中的应用[J]. 中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志, 2022, 24(4): 278-285. Changjin Li, Xue Li, Qiang Lu. Observation and Study of Corvis ST, Common Tonometer and Corneal Pachymeter in Measuring Intraocular Pressure and Corneal Thickness. Chinese Journal of Optometry Ophthalmology and Visual science, 2022, 24(4): 278-285. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115909-20210908-00370

链接本文:

https://www.cjoovs.com/CN/10.3760/cma.j.cn115909-20210908-00370 或 https://www.cjoovs.com/CN/Y2022/V24/I4/278

[1]	Terai N, Raiskup F, Haustein M, et al. Identification of biomechanical properties of the cornea: the ocular response analyzer. Curr Eye Res, 2012, 37(7): 553-562. DOI: 10.3109/02713683.2012.669007.
[2]	Knox Cartwright NE, Tyrer JR, Marshall J. Age-related differences in the elasticity of the human cornea. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2011, 52(7):4324-4329. DOI: 10.1167/ iovs.09-4798.
[3]	Elsheikh A, Wang D, Brown M, et al. Assessment of corneal biomechanical properties and their variation with age. Curr EyeRes, 2007, 32(1) :11-19. DOI: 10.1080/02713680601077145.
[4]	Hamed-Azzam S, Briscoe D, Tomkins O, et al. Evaluation of intraocular pressure according to corneal thickness before and after excimer laser corneal ablation for myopia. Int Ophthalmol, 2013, 33(4): 349-354. DOI: 10.1007/s10792-012-9701-7.
[5]	Viswanathan D, Goldberg I, Graham SL. Relationship of change in central corneal thickness to visual field progression in eyes with glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 2013, 251(6): 1593-1599. DOI: 10.1007/s00417-013-2295-6.
[6]	Christensen A, Narváez J, Zimmerman G. Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by ultrasound pachymetry, konan noncontact optical pachymetry, and orbscan pachymetry. Cornea, 2008, 27(8): 862-865. DOI: 10.1097/ ICO.0b013e31816ed532.
[7]	Soleimanizad R, Nowroozzadeh MH, Ziaei H, et al. The association of central corneal thickness with ocular and general parameters in a community setting: the Yazd Eye Study. J Ophthalmic Vis Res, 2017, 12(2): 141-150. DOI:10.4103/jovr. jovr_111_15.
[8]	Hohberger B, Sommerfeld C, Lucio M, et al. ICare pro: age dependent effect of central corneal thickness on intraocular pressure in glaucoma and ocular hypertension patients. Curr Eye Res, 2020, 45(6): 668-674. DOI: 10.1080/02713683.2019.1696977.
[9]	祖培培, 王雁, 左彤, 等. 角膜生物力学眼压分析仪Corvis ST 测量值的重复性与一致性研究. 中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志, 2013, 15(5): 261-265. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674- 845X.2013.05.002.
[10]	樊宁, 王希振, 王宁利, 等. 非接触式眼压计与Goldmann 压平眼压计测量眼压值一致性的 M e t a 分析 . 中华实验眼科杂志, 2017, 35(4): 339-343. DOI: 10.3760/cma. j.issn.2095-0160.2017.04.011.
[11]	韩晓彤, 赵海霞, 关文英, 等. CorvisST与Pentacam及 Topcon眼压计测量中央角膜厚度、眼压结果的一致性观察. 山东医药, 2016, 56(8): 87-88. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1002- 266X.2016.08.036.
[12]	Luebke J, Bryniok L, Neuburger M, et al. Intraocular pressure measurement with Corvis ST in comparison with applanation tonometry and Tomey non-contact tonometry. Int Ophthalmol, 2019, 39(11): 2517-2521. DOI: 10.1007/s10792-019-01098-5.
[13]	Zhang Y, Zheng L, Bian A, et al. IOP measurement in silicone oil tamponade eyes by Corvis ST tonometer, Goldmann applanation tonometry and non-contact tonometry. Int Ophthalmol, 2018, 38(2): 697-703. DOI: 10.1007/s10792-017-0519-1.
[14]	李华, 王雁, 窦瑞, 等. 飞秒激光小切口角膜基质透镜取出术后眼压测量及其影响因素分析. 中华眼科杂志, 2016, 52(1): 22-29. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0412-4081.2016.01.008.
[15]	胡丹, 赵刚平, 余建洪, 等. Lenstar 900与A型超声和角膜曲率计在白内障患者眼生物学测量的比较. 国际眼科杂志, 2014, 14(8): 1440-1443. DOI: 10.3980/j.issn.1672-5123.2014.08.19.
[16]	肖信 , 刘伟民 , 黄建忠 , 等 . 角膜生物力学分析仪测量近视患者中央角膜厚度和眼压的准确性评价 . 中华实验眼科杂志, 2016, 34(4): 340-344. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-0160.2016.04.011.
[17]	李跃祖, 李俊, 张洁莹, 等. Corvis ST和Pentacam联合诊断系统测量角膜厚度及眼压的临床观察. 临床眼科杂志, 2020, 28(4): 341-346. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-8422.2020.04.014.
[18]	Tappeiner C, Rohrer K, Frueh BE, et al. Clinical comparison of biometry using the non-contact optical low coherence reflectometer (Lenstar LS 900) and contact ultrasound biometer (Tomey AL-3000) in cataract eyes. Br J Ophthalmol, 2010, 94(5): 666-667. DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2009.167700.
[19]	黄磊 , 段宝萍 , 胡琦 . 角膜厚度的非接触式测量及研究进展. 临床眼科杂志, 2010, 18(4): 380-383. DOI: 10.3969/ j.issn.1006-8422.2010.04.038.
[20]	陈长喜, 李建军, 游启生, 等. Pentacam眼前节分析仪测量中央角膜厚度的研究. 眼科, 2009, 18(6): 418-420. DOI: CNKI: SUN: YAKE. O. 2009-06-025.
[21]	杨雅静, 赵江月, 张劲松. 不同测厚仪角膜厚度测量值的对比研究. 国际眼科杂志, 2012, 12(10): 1863-1866. DOI: 10.3969/ j.issn.1672-5123.2012.10.12.
[22]	Yu A, Zhao W, Savini G, et al. Evaluation of central corneal thickness using corneal dynamic Scheimpflug Analyzer Corvis ST and comparison with Pentacam Rotating Scheimpflug System and Ultrasound Pachymetry in normal eyes. J Ophthalmol, 2015, 2015: 767012. DOI: 10.1155/2015/767012.
[23]	Smedowski A, Weglarz B, Tarnawska D, et al. Comparison of three intraocular pressure measurement methods including biomechanical properties of the cornea. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2014, 55(2): 666-673. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.13-13172.
[24]	朱小敏, 张勇, 谢琳. Corvis®ST在青光眼中测量中央角膜厚度和眼内压的临床研究. 重庆医学, 2020, 49(21): 3556-3560. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-8348.2020.21.012.