접촉식과 광학적 방식에 의한 전방깊이 측정값의 비교
Comparison of Anterior Chamber Depth Obtained from Applanation and Optical Principle Devices
- 대한안과학회
- 대한안과학회지
- Ophthalmological Society,volume54,number8
-
2013.081219 - 1226 (8 pages)
- 0
Purpose: To assess the reproducibility and reliability of applanation A-scan ultrasonography (Pacscan 300A, Sonomed Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and optical measurements with IOL Master<sup>® (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Germany), Pentacam<sup>® (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany), and Orbscan II<sup>® (Orbtek Inc., Laredo, TX, USA) when measuring anterior chamber depth (ACD). Methods: In this study of 188 eyes of 94 patients, ACD estimation prior to cataract surgery was preformed by the applanation A-scan method and IOL Master<sup>®, Pentacam<sup>®, and Orbscan II<sup>® optical methods. Repeatability from each device was evaluated by coefficient of variation, standard deviation, and intraclass correlation coefficient. RM-ANOVA on Ranks was used to compare the differences in ACD among the devices. The Bland-Altman plot was performed to assess agreement in measurements between the devices. Results: The mean ACD according to the applanation A-scan method and IOL Master<sup>®, Pentacam<sup>®, and Orbscan II<sup>® optical methods were 2.89 ± 0.49 mm, 3.25 ± 0.45 mm, 3.21 ± 0.46 mm, and 3.19 ± 0.47 mm, respectively, and the differences were statistically significant (p < 0.01). The coefficient of variation for the 4 methods was 2.50% in the A-scan, 0.87% in the IOL Master<sup>®, 1.25% in the Pentacam<sup>®, and 1.04% with Orbscan II<sup>®, and reproducibility was higher with the optical principle devices. The correlation coefficient between A-scan and IOL Master<sup>® was 0.65, between IOL Master<sup>® and Pentacam<sup>® 0.91, between IOL Master<sup>® and Orbscan II<sup>® 0.90, between A-scan and Pentacam<sup>® 0.69, between A-scan and Orbscan II<sup>® 0.71, and between Pentacam<sup>® and Orbscan II<sup>® 0.93. Conclusions: Applanation A-scan provided lower measurements for ACD compared with IOL Master<sup>®, Pentacam<sup>® and Orbscan II<sup>®. There was good agreement between results obtained with the latter 3 methods, and reproducibility was high with optical measurements. The coefficient of variation was low for IOL Master<sup>®.
(0)
(0)