三种仪器对近视患者眼前节生物学参数测量的比较

背景 近视屈光手术的开展需要我们对患者眼前节的数据进行精确测量和评估.目前临床上有多种仪器和方法可以对患者的眼前节进行生物学测量,但是哪种方法更为精确和方便,仍需进一步探讨.目的 比较眼前节光学相干断层扫描（AS-OCT）、OrbscanⅡ、超声生物测厚仪对近视患者眼前节参数的测量结果.方法 回顾性分析2011年11月至2012年5月于浙江大学医学院附属第二医院眼科中心就诊的拟行角膜屈光手术的近视患者70例140眼,受检者等效球镜度为-0.75 ～-10.25 D.分别用AS-OCT、OrbscanⅡ和超声角膜测厚仪测量角膜中央厚度（CCT）,用AS-OCT测量前房深度（ACD）和前房角间距（ATA）,用OrbscanⅡ测量ACD和角膜白到白距离（WTW）,对3种测量仪器的测量结果进行比较. 结果 AS-OCT、超声角膜测厚仪和OrbscanⅡ测量的平均CCT值分别为（516.57±30.25）、（523.68±31.87）和（514.69±38.40） μm,3种测量仪器间测量结果的总体比较差异无统计学意义（F=2.775,P=0.063）.根据超声角膜测厚仪所测的CCT结果将受检者分为＜500μm组、500 ～ 569 μm组和≥570 μm组,＜500 μm组受检者以超声角膜测厚仪测量的CCT值最高,OrbscanⅡ测量值最低,用3种方法测量的CCT值差异有统计学意义（F=22.236,P=0.000）;AS-OCT和超声角膜测厚仪的测量值间差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）.500～569 μm组受检者用3种仪器测量的CCT值总体比较差异无统计学意义（F=3.011,P=0.051）.≥570 μm组受检者用超声角膜测厚仪测量的CCT最高,AS-OCT测量值最低,3种仪器的测量值总体比较差异有统计学意义（F=4.133,P=0.021）,超声角膜测厚仪与Orbscan Ⅱ测量的CCT值差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）.AS-OCT和OrbscanⅡ测量的ACD值分别为（3.83±0.21）mm和（3.75±0.21）mm,二者差异有统计学意义（t=-8.520,P=0.000）;AS-OCT测量的ATA为（12.43±0.74） mm,OrbscanⅡ测量的WTW为（11.42±0.33） m     

Oculyzer和Sirius眼前节分析仪测量中央角膜厚度及形态的比较研究

目的比较Oculyzer和Sirius测量的中央角膜厚度(CCT)与A超测量CCT的差异,比较两种眼前节分析系统测量角膜前表面Q值的差异,为临床检查提供参考。方法选取近视屈光不正患者25例(50只眼),依次用Oculyzer和Sirius检查眼前节,再行A超测量CCT,比较Oculyzer和Sirius与A超测量的CCT的差异,比较Oc-ulyzer和Sirius测量的角膜最薄点的差异及前表面中央6 mm直径范围Q值差异。每种仪器测量5次取平均值,数据进行统计分析。结果 Oculyzer、Sirius、A超测量CCT均数分别为:(546.70±31.94)μm、(535.96±31.96)μm、(541.00±32.60)μm,Oculyzer测量值较A超厚,而Sirius测量值较A超薄,两两比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),高度相关,一致性好;Oculyzer和Sirius测量角膜最薄点的厚度均值分别为:(543.96±31.73)μm、(533.00±32.19)μm,两者比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),但相关性和一致性好。Oculyzer和Sirius测量角膜前表面中央6 mm直径范围Q值分别为:-0.1912±0.1134和-0.1202±0.1083,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),无明显相关性,但一致性较好。结论 Oculyzer和Sirius测量CCT与A超比较虽有统计学差异,但有高度相关性和一致性,可取代A超。Oculyzer测量角膜最薄点厚度较Sirius测量值高,但有高度相关性和一致性。Oculyz-er测量角膜的厚度均较Sirius厚,Q值较Sirius偏负,临床使用时仍需慎重选择。     

Lenstar、Pentacam与Sirius测量白内障患者眼前节生物参数的比较

目的 评估新型光学低相干反射仪Lenstar、Pentacam眼前节综合分析系统和眼前节生物测量仪Sirius测量白内障患者中央角膜厚度（CCT）、前房深度（ACD）、角膜曲率（Km）的差异性与一致性,为临床使用提供依据.方法 前瞻性对照研究.同一观测者分别应用Lenstar 、Pentacam和Sirius 测量40例（40眼）白内障患者的CCT、角膜内皮到晶状体前表面的ACD （ACDendo）、角膜上皮到晶状体前表面的ACD（ACDepi）和Km,眼别的选择采用随机方式.对3种仪器测量的以上指标比较采用重复测量方差分析,进一步用Bonferroni法两两比较仪器间的差异,一致性比较采用Bland-Altman统计分析法.结果 Lenstar、Pentacam和Sirius测量CCT的平均值分别为（528.18＆#177;29.12）μm、（533.21＆#177;27.02）μm和（534.48＆#177;26.15） μm,ACDendo分别为（2.54＆#177;0.41）mm、（2.54＆#177;0.43）mm和（2.57＆#177;0.43）mm,ACDepi分别为（3.07＆#177;0.41）mm、（3.08 ＆#177;0.42） mm和（3.10＆#177;0.43）mm,差异均有统计学意义（F=11.641、9.961、12.539,P＜0.01）,Km值分别为（44.05＆#177;1.69）D、（43.99＆#177;1.65）D、（43.93＆#177;1.63）D,差异有统计学意义（F=4.186,P＜0.05）.3种仪器测量CCT、ACDendo、ACDepi、Km的95％一致性区间（LoA）较小,其上下限最大的绝对值分别为26.41 μm、0.12 mm、0.12 mm和0.61 D,一致性好.结论 Lenstar、Pentacam和Sirius测量白内障患者中央角膜厚度、前房深度、角膜曲率具有良好的一致性,为临床白内障患者眼前节参数的测量提供了新的选择.     

不同角膜测厚法对LASIK术后中央及旁中央角膜厚度测量值的影响及比较分析

背景 准确的角膜厚度测量对准分子激光角膜屈光手术的术前设计及术后随访非常重要,对屈光欠矫及屈光回退的患者能否行二次激光加强手术更是不可或缺的重要检查. 目的 比较OrbscanⅡ眼前节分析仪（OrbscanⅡ）、非接触角膜内皮显微镜、眼前节光学相干断层扫描仪（AS-OCT）和A型超声角膜测厚仪对准分子激光角膜原位磨镶术（LASIK）术后角膜中央和旁中央厚度测量结果的差异. 方法 收集2011年3-6月在河南省眼科研究所＆河南省立眼科医院接受LASIK手术的患者64例64眼（均纳入右眼）,受检者术前平均等效球镜屈光度为（-4.75±2.38）D,平均水平角膜直径为（11.36±0.32）mm,采用OrbscanⅡ、非接触角膜内皮显微镜、AS-OCT和A型超声角膜测厚仪（超声法）分别测量受检眼的中央角膜厚度（CCT）,同时采用OrbscanⅡ、非接触角膜内皮显微镜、AS-OCT 3种非接触角膜厚度测量法测量距角膜中心3 mm区角膜上方（12：00）、下方（6：00）、鼻上方（2：00）和颞上方（10：00）的旁中央角膜厚度,比较不同角膜测厚仪测量结果的差异,评价检测仪器间测量结果的一致性. 结果 CCT测量结果显示,AS-OCT、A型超声角膜测厚仪、非接触角膜内皮显微镜和OrbsanⅡ的测量值分别为（467.12±31.10）、（466.67±30.99）、（441.84±33.65） μm和（422.51±44.09）μm,总体比较差异有统计学意义（F=23.730,P=0.000）;A型超声角膜测厚仪测得的CCT值明显高于OrbsanⅡ和非接触角膜内皮显微镜的结果,差异均有统计学意义（q=6.940、6.720,均P=0.000）;与OrbscanⅡ测量方法比较,非接触角膜内皮显微镜和AS-OCT测量的CCT值明显较高,差异均有统计学意义（q=-5.540、6.940,均P=0.000）,而AS-OCT测量的CCT值明显高于非接触角膜内皮显微镜的测量值,差异有统计学意义（q=6.800,P=0.000）.Bland-Ahman一致性分析结果显示,A型超声角膜测厚仪与AS-OCT?     

眼前节相干光断层扫描仪与Orbscan Ⅱ及超声法眼前节生物测量对比研究

目的 比较眼前节相干光断层扫描仪(AS-OCT)与Orbscan Ⅱ以及超声法眼的节生物测量结果,为临床应用提供参考:方法对33例(66只眼)近视眼患者分别行AS-OCT,Orbscan Ⅱ以及A型超声测量仪(DGH550和DGH4000)进行眼前节生物测量,获取角膜中央厚度(CCT),前房深度(ACD),角膜直径,瞳孔直径以及前房角度数,进行对比分析.结果 AS-OCT,Orbscan Ⅱ以及超声法测量CCT分别为(532.32±35.26)μm.(538.45±38.31)μm,(555.82±37.63)μm,两两比较各组差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01).相关性分析显示三种方法中两两间均呈正相关,相关系数r=0.92、0.91、0.95;ACD分别为(3.19±0.21)mm,(3.08±0.24)mm,和(3.27±0.23)mm,两两间差异也均有统计学意义(P<0.01). OCT法测量瞳孔直径为(5.5±0.93)mm,Orbscan法测量结果为(4.5±0.75)mm,二者相差(-1.00±0.68)mm.差异有统计学意义(t=11.95,P=0.000),95%置信区间(0.84,1.17). OCT测量房角度数均大于Orbscan测量结果,在180度二者相差1.58度,差异无统计学意义(t=1.58,P=0.119),在0度相差2.89度,差异有统计学意义(t=2.89,P=0.005).结论 AS-OCT测量角膜中央厚度较Orbscan Ⅱ以及超声法测量结果薄,前房深度较Orbscan结果深,更接近于超声测量结果.房角角度测量结果与Orbscan结果近似,且能直观显示房角结构;眼前节OCT快速,非接触,在眼前节生物测量有广泛的应用前景.     

三种角膜测厚仪测量近视患者中央角膜厚度的对比

目的:利用LenstarLS900,OrbscanⅡ系统及A超角膜测厚仪测量近视眼患者中央角膜厚度(central corneal thickness,CCT),探讨三种测量方法的差异,并对结果进行相关性和一致性评价,为临床应用提供理论依据。方法:随机选取角膜屈光手术术前近视眼患者35例70眼分别用Lenstar LS900,OrbscanⅡ及A超角膜测厚仪依次重复测量CCT3次,取其平均值进行统计学分析。不同方法测量CCT之间采用随机区组方差分析,组内两两比较采用LSD-t检验,三种测量方法之间的相关性采用直线相关分析,一致性检验采用Bland-Altman分析。以P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果:Lenstar LS900,OrbscanⅡ及A超角膜测厚仪测得的近视眼患者CCT均数分别为542.75±40.06,528.74±39.59,538.54±40.93μm。Lenstar LS900的测量值较A超角膜测厚仪的测量值大4.21±8.78μm,较OrbscanⅡ测量值大14.01±13.39μm,OrbscanⅡ测量值较A超角膜测厚仪小9.8±10.57μm,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。3种不同仪器测量结果均具有显著相关性,Lenstar LS900和A超角膜测厚仪、OrbscanⅡ测量值呈正相关:r=0.977(P<0.05),r=0.944(P<0.05)。Bland-Altman方法分析:Lenstar LS900和A超角膜测厚仪95%一致性区间上下值为-13.0～21.4μm,1.4%的点在95%的一致性界限以外,OrbscanⅡ与A超角膜测厚仪95%一致性区间上下值为-30.5～10.9μm,7.1%的点在95%一致性界限以外,LenstarLS900和A超角膜测厚仪一致性更好。结论:LS900与A超角膜测厚仪和OrbscanⅡ系统测量CCT一致性及相关性好,Lenstar LS900可以作为近视患者CCT的非接触式测量工具。     

四种方法测量近视患者中央角膜厚度的比较研究

目的探讨超声角膜测厚仪(A超)、Sirius眼前节分析系统、傅立叶域眼前节断层扫描仪(RTVue-OCT)和Orbscan Ⅱ眼前节分析仪测量近视患者中央角膜厚度(central corneal thickness,CCT)的差异及一致性。方法分别用A超、Srius、RTVue-OCT和Orbscan Ⅱ测量近视患者85例(170眼)的CCT,用配对t检验对其差异进行比较,用Bland-Altman分析对其一致性进行检验。结果 A超、Sirius、RTVue-OCT和OrbscanⅡ测得的CCT值分别为(531.77±34.98)μm、(531.84±35.86)μm、(521.34±34.43)μm、(530.78±41.00)μm,RTVue-OCT的测量值最小,与其他3种测量仪结果相比差异均有统计学意义(均为P=0.000),其他3种仪器测量结果相似,差异均无统计学意义(均为P>0.05)。线性相关显示4种测量方法两两之间均存在正相关(均为P=0.000)。Bland-Altman分析显示4种测量方法均有良好的一致性。结论 4种仪器均可以作为CCT的测量工具,但相互替代使用需要慎重。RTVue-OCT测量的CCT值较小,应引起注意。     

Orbscan眼前节分析系统与超声测厚仪测量角膜厚度比较

目的比较Orbscan眼前节分析系统与超声测量角膜厚度的差异。方法对我院屈光手术中心术前近视患者68例（135只眼）,男46例（91只眼）,女22例（44只眼）,同时用两种方法测量角膜中央厚度,进行临床比较分析。结果 Orbscan眼前节分析系统、超声测量角膜中央平均厚度结果分别为（518.22±31.80）μm和（538.16±29.30）μm。超声测厚比Orbscan测量结果大19.94μm,差异有显著统计学意义（P〈0.01）。根据超声角膜厚度测量结果及等效球镜度分别分组分析,任一组两种方法测量结果差异均有显著统计学意义（P〈0.05）。不同屈光度数组间角膜厚度差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论采用系统默认校正系数,Orbscan眼前节分析系统与超声对近视患者角膜中央厚度检查结果存在一定差异,在屈光手术术前角膜厚度检查评估时应注意仪器间的差异。近视度数与角膜中央厚度无关。     

两种仪器测量近视患者角膜地形图的对比研究

目的对比OrbscanⅡ和Pentacam眼前节分析仪测量近视患者角膜地形图的差异。方法分别使用OrbscanⅡ和Pentacam眼前节分析仪测量119例近视患者角膜地形图,并对测量结果进行方差分析、配对t检验和Pearson相关分析。结果 OrbscanⅡ和Pentacam测得CCT平均值分别为(515.67±36.06)μm、(539.67±31.41)μm,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);OrbscanⅡ测得角膜前后表面曲率、前后表面高度和瞳孔直径均显著高于Penta-cam;两种仪器测得角膜散光和前房深度无差异。结论两种仪器测得角膜地形图存在一定差异,在临床工作中不能将二者测量结果简单替代。     

Pentacam、Orbscan Ⅱ及A超测量中央角膜厚度的比较

目的 比较Pentacam、Orbscan Ⅱ和A超测量中央角膜厚度(central corneal thickness,CCT)的差异.方法 分别在角膜屈光术前对74例(148眼)患者采用Pentacam、Orbscan Ⅱ和A超测量CCT,比较CCT的差异及3种方法的相关性和一致性.结果 Pentacam、Orbscan Ⅱ和A超测得的平均CCT分别为(540.00±27.47)μm、(528.00±25.29)μm和(537.82±24.34)μm,Orbscan Ⅱ测得的结果显著低于Pentacam和A超(均为P＜0.05).3种方法测量结果有显著相关性(P＜0.05),其中Pentacam与A超具有更好的相关性.Pentacam和A超测量结果差值的平均值及一致性界限上下值分别为(4.50±14.31)μm、22.47μm/-13.47 μm;Pentacam和Orbscan Ⅱ的分别为(11.39±15.13)μm、40.08μm/-17.31μm;A超和Orbscan Ⅱ的分别为(7.15±16.03)μm、28.46 μm/-14.16 μm.3种测量方法所得数据均与等效球镜无相关性(P＞O.05).结论 Pentacam测得的结果比Orbscan Ⅱ更接近目前公认的金标准A超的结果.3种仪器所得数据具有一定的相关性,但存在差异,在临床操作中不能将3种仪器测出的结果简单替代.     

Comparison of anterior ocular segment measurements for cataracts using Lenstar， Pentacam and Sirius

ObjectiveTo assess the differences and agreements among measurements of cataractous eyes using Lenstar LS900 biometer, Pentacam rotating Scheimpflug photography and a Sirius Scheimpflug-Placido disc topographer. The following measurements were taken： central corneal thickness （CCT）, anterior chamber depth from the corneal endothelium to the anterior lens capsule （ACDendo）, anterior chamber depth from the corneal epithelium to the anterior lens capsule （ACDepi） and mean keratometry （Km）. MethodsIn this prospective clinical study, CCT, ACD （including ACDendo and ACDepi） and the Km of 40 eyes were randomly obtained by Lenstar, Pentacam and Sirius. All measurements included the 3 methods which were compared using a repeated-measures analysis of variance （ANOVA）, with a Bonferroni multiple comparison correction. Bland-Altman analyses were used to evaluate the agreement between the devices. ResultsThe mean CCTs obtained by Lenstar, Pentacam and Sirius were 528.18±29.12 μm, 533.21±27.02 μm and 534.48±26.15 μm, respectively. The mean ACDendo obtained by Lenstar, Pentacam and Sirius were 2.54±0.41 mm, 2.54±0.43 mm and 2.57±0.43 mm, respectively. The mean ACDepi obtained by Lenstar, Pentacam and Sirius were 3.07±0.41 mm, 3.08±0.42 mm and 3.10±0.43 mm, respectively. The mean Km obtained by Lenstar, Pentacam and Sirius were 44.05±1.69 D, 43.99±1.65 D and 43.93±1.63 D, respectively. There were significant differences among the results of these three methods in CCT （F=11.641, P<0.01）, ACDendo （F=9.961, P<0.01）, ACDepi （F=12.539, P<0.01）, and Km （F=4.186, P<0.05）. The Bland-Altman plot analyses showed that the three devices had comparable results for CCT, ACD and Km. For the maximum absolute values of 95% limits of agreement （LoA） were 26.41 µm, 0.12 mm, 0.12 mm and 0.61 D respectively. ConclusionLenstar, Pentacam and Sirius demonstrated high agreement for CCT, ACD and corneal curvature measurements in cataractous eyes.     

四种仪器测量近视眼角膜中央厚度的比较

目的比较Oculyzer眼前段分析系统、光学生物测量仪Lenstar LS900、角膜内皮镜与超声测厚仪测量屈光不正患者中央角膜厚度(CCT)的差异性和一致性。方法连续选取行术前检查的屈光不正患者34例(68只眼),对每位患者分别用Oculyzer、Lenstar、Tomey内皮镜、超声测厚仪四种仪器测量其CCT,数据统计分析采用配对t检验、简单线性相关、B1and-Altman分析。结果 Oculyzer、Lenstar、Tomey内皮镜、超声测厚仪测量CCT平均值为(557.69±32.99)μm、(546.75±34.44)μm、(539.44±33.58)μm、(555.87±34.97)μm。超声测厚仪与Oculyz-er两种测量方法比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);超声测厚仪与lenstar、Tomey内皮镜比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);线性相关显示超声测厚仪与Oculyzer、Lenstar和Tomey内皮镜三种仪器之间存在正相关(P<0.001),相关系数分别为0.943、0.965、0.968。B1and-Altman分析显示超声测厚仪与Oculyzer、Lenstar和Tomey内皮镜比较95%一致性界限范围分别为(-24.71～21.07)μm、(-8.79～27.03)μm、(-10.74～23.60)μm。结论 Oculyz-er测量值与超声测厚仪最接近;三种仪器与超声测厚仪之间呈正相关;三种仪器与超声测厚仪的一致性均较好。     

Comparison of anterior chamber depth measured by Galilei II， Pentacam and IOLMaster

ObjectiveTo assess the agreement of ACD measurements among Galilei II, Pentacam and IOLMaster in myopic eyes. Methods Forty eyes of forty healthy myopia volunteers, whose spherical equivalent were -1.00~-8.00 D, with an average of -4.40±1.80 D, were enrolled in this prospective study. ACD were randomly measured by Galilei II, Pentacam and IOLMaster. The differences between ACD measurements by the 3 devices were analyzed by Bonferroni-corrected repeated-measures analysis of variance. Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman analysis were used to assess the correlation and agreement among the 3 measurements. Results The ACD （mean±standard deviation） with Galilei II, Pentacam and IOLMaster were 3.81±0.20 mm, 3.72±0.20 mm and 3.71±0.20 mm, respectively. Good correlation were found between any two of 3 devices （r=0.984, 0.970, 0.968, P<0.01）. The difference between Galilei II and Pentacam was 0.10±0.04 mm and statistically significant （P<0.01）. The difference between Galilei II and IOLMaster was 0.10±0.05 mm and statistically significant （P<0.01）. The difference between Pentacam and IOLMaster was 0.00±0.05 mm without statistically significant difference （P＞0.05）. The 95% limits of agreement between Galilei II and Pentacam, Galilei II and IOLMaster, Pentacam and IOLMaster were 0.026~0.167 mm, 0.004~0.195 mm and -0.096~0.102 mm, respectively. Conclusion In myopic eyes, Pentacam measured similar ACD values with IOLMaster. Galilei II measured slightly deeper ACD than either Pentacam or IOLMaster, the differences were within clinically acceptable level. Therefore, they can be regarded clinically interchangeable in measuring myopic eyes.     

Comparison of central corneal thickness and anterior chamber depth measurements using three imaging technologies in normal eyes and after phakic intraocular lens implantation

Background  The repeatability and interchangeability of imaging devices measuring central corneal thickness (CCT) and anterior chamber depth (ACD) are important in the assessment of patients considering refractive surgery. The purpose of this study was to investigate the agreement of CCT and ACD measurements using three imaging technologies in healthy eyes and in eyes after phakic intraocular lens implantation (pIOL). Methods  In this comparative study, CCT and ACD were measured using anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT), Orbscan II, and Pentacam in 33 healthy volunteers (66 eyes) and 22 patients (42 eyes) after pIOL implantation. Intraobserver repeatability was evaluated for all three devices in the healthy volunteer group. Results  Pairwise comparison of CCT measurements showed significant differences between all devices (P < 0.001), except for the AS-OCT and Orbscan II in the healthy volunteer group (P = 0.422) and the Orbscan II and Pentacam in the pIOL group (P = 0.214). ACD measurements demonstrated significant differences between all pairwise comparisons in both groups (P ≤ 0.001). Intraobserver reliability was high for CCT and ACD measurements in the healthy volunteer group, with coefficients of variation ranging from 0.6% to 1.2% and 0.4% to 0.5% respectively. Conclusions  CCT and ACD measurements using AS-OCT, Orbscan II, and Pentacam demonstrated high intraobserver reliability. However, these devices should not be used interchangeably for measurements of CCT and ACD in healthy subject and patients after pIOL implantation. Financial support  None The authors have no financial or proprietary interest in any aspect of this study and have full control of all primary data, and agree to allow Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology to review our data if requested.     

Anterior chamber depth measurement with a-scan ultrasonography, Orbscan II, and IOLMaster.

PURPOSE: The authors conducted a comparison of anterior chamber depth (ACD) measurement by 3 devices of EchoScan, Orbscan II, and IOLMaster to assess the validity of the latter 2 and its reliability with Orbscan II. METHODS: Forty-four myopic patients, 56.8% female, were enrolled in this prospective study. In all 88 eyes, the ACD was first measured with Orbscan II, followed by IOLMaster and EchoScan U3300, both under cycloplegia. The mean (+/-standard deviation) age and spherical equivalent were 30.2+/-8.5 years and -4.98+/-2.67 D, respectively. The difference between ACD measurements by these 3 devices was analyzed using the repeated-measures analysis of variance. Agreement between each pair of devices was assessed by computing the 95% limits of agreement (LoA). Orbscan II reliability was also evaluated by using the 95% LoA between 2 consecutive measurements. P value adjustments for multiple comparisons were performed using the Bonferroni method. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference between measurements made with the 3 devices (p<0.001). The mean difference between Orbscan II and Echoscan ACD measurements was -0.03+/-0.12 mm, with the 95% LoA from -0.25 to +0.20 mm, and between IOLMaster and Echoscan measurements, it was +0.09+/-0.14 mm with the 95% LoA from -0.18 to +0.36 mm. On average, Orbscan II readings were lower and those of IOLMaster were higher than Echoscan readings. Both Orbscan II and IOLMaster agreed with Echoscan in measuring ACD. The 2 readings by Orbscan II had a 95% LoA of -0.05 and +0.07 mm that shows good reliability. CONCLUSION: ACD measurement differences with the 3 studied devices proved to be statistically significant; however, these minor differences may be clinically negligible depending on the use of the measurement. As an advantage, both Orbscan II and IOLMaster are noncontact, and with their ACD measurements being valid, they may be considered suitable devices for this purpose. In addition, Orbscan II produces highly repeatable ACD measurements.     

Sirius系统与Lenstar 900测量眼前节参数的比较研究

目的：比较两种非接触眼生物测量仪Lenstar 900（ LS900）和Sirius眼前节分析系统测量眼前节有关参数的异同。 方法：对近视患者54例87眼分别采用LS900及Sirius系统测量角膜中央厚度（ central corneal thickness, CCT）、前房深度（aqueous depth, ACD）、角膜平K（flat keratometry, FK）、角膜陡 K（steep keratometry,SK）、白到白（white to white, WTW）。采用配对 t 检验、Pearson 相关和 Bland-Altman图分析和评估。 结果：Sirius系统检测的CCT和ACD大于LS900,而FK、SK和 WTW 小于 LS900,差值的均值分别为-6.11±6.32μm;-0.09±0.07 mm;0.18±0.25 D;0.21±0.36 D 和0.25±0.39mm,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）。 Pearson相关性分析两种检测结果均显著相关（ P〈0.01）。 Bland-Altman 一致性比较：95%一致性界限分别为6.26~18.49μm,0.04~0.22mm,0.68~0.32D,0.92~0.50D和1.00~0.5mm。 结论：LS900和Sirius系统对眼前节参数的检测具有良好的相关性和一致性,但也存在一定差异。这可能与Lenstar和Sirius测量方式并不一致有关,因此还有待进一步研究。