Cargando…

Refractive Results Using a New Optical Biometry Device: Comparison With Ultrasound Biometry Data

The aim of the study was to compare the measurements of optical (AL-Scan; Nidek Co., Ltd.) and ultrasonic (Echo Scan US-800; Nidek Co., Ltd.) biometry devices and to assess refractive results after cataract surgery. Eighty-one cataractous eyes of 81 patients were included in this study. Biometry was...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Aktas, Serdar, Aktas, Hatice, Tetikoglu, Mehmet, Sagdık, Hacı Murat, Özcura, Fatih
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4674203/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26632900
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000002169
_version_ 1782404879290990592
author Aktas, Serdar
Aktas, Hatice
Tetikoglu, Mehmet
Sagdık, Hacı Murat
Özcura, Fatih
author_facet Aktas, Serdar
Aktas, Hatice
Tetikoglu, Mehmet
Sagdık, Hacı Murat
Özcura, Fatih
author_sort Aktas, Serdar
collection PubMed
description The aim of the study was to compare the measurements of optical (AL-Scan; Nidek Co., Ltd.) and ultrasonic (Echo Scan US-800; Nidek Co., Ltd.) biometry devices and to assess refractive results after cataract surgery. Eighty-one cataractous eyes of 81 patients were included in this study. Biometry was performed using the AL-Scan and an ultrasonic biometer (USB). Axial length (AL), keratometry (K) data, and intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations using the SRK/T formula were compared. Bland–Altman analysis was used to assess the extent of agreement between AL-Scan and USB data in terms of AL measurement and IOL power calculation. The K measurements of the AL-Scan were compared to autorefractor data (Canon Autorefractor RK-F1). The AL-Scan assessed the AL as longer (average difference 0.06 ± 0.18 mm; ICC = 0.987; P < 0.001) and the IOL power as greater (average difference 0.19 ± 0.66 D; ICC = 0.964; P < 0.001) than the USB. The AL-Scan also measured average K values (average difference 0.25 ± 0.25 D; ICC = 0.985; P < 0.001) greater than those given by the autorefractor. The postoperative mean absolute error was +0.30 ± 0.04 D (minimum: −0.51 D, maximum +1.04 D). The postoperative mean K value change was 0.36 ± 0.29 D (P < 0.05). The differences between measurements afforded by the AL-Scan and USB may be clinically acceptable. Keratometric changes that develop after cataract operations compromise the attainment of good refractive outcomes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4674203
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Wolters Kluwer Health
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46742032015-12-14 Refractive Results Using a New Optical Biometry Device: Comparison With Ultrasound Biometry Data Aktas, Serdar Aktas, Hatice Tetikoglu, Mehmet Sagdık, Hacı Murat Özcura, Fatih Medicine (Baltimore) 5200 The aim of the study was to compare the measurements of optical (AL-Scan; Nidek Co., Ltd.) and ultrasonic (Echo Scan US-800; Nidek Co., Ltd.) biometry devices and to assess refractive results after cataract surgery. Eighty-one cataractous eyes of 81 patients were included in this study. Biometry was performed using the AL-Scan and an ultrasonic biometer (USB). Axial length (AL), keratometry (K) data, and intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations using the SRK/T formula were compared. Bland–Altman analysis was used to assess the extent of agreement between AL-Scan and USB data in terms of AL measurement and IOL power calculation. The K measurements of the AL-Scan were compared to autorefractor data (Canon Autorefractor RK-F1). The AL-Scan assessed the AL as longer (average difference 0.06 ± 0.18 mm; ICC = 0.987; P < 0.001) and the IOL power as greater (average difference 0.19 ± 0.66 D; ICC = 0.964; P < 0.001) than the USB. The AL-Scan also measured average K values (average difference 0.25 ± 0.25 D; ICC = 0.985; P < 0.001) greater than those given by the autorefractor. The postoperative mean absolute error was +0.30 ± 0.04 D (minimum: −0.51 D, maximum +1.04 D). The postoperative mean K value change was 0.36 ± 0.29 D (P < 0.05). The differences between measurements afforded by the AL-Scan and USB may be clinically acceptable. Keratometric changes that develop after cataract operations compromise the attainment of good refractive outcomes. Wolters Kluwer Health 2015-12-07 /pmc/articles/PMC4674203/ /pubmed/26632900 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000002169 Text en Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0 This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives License 4.0, which allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to the author. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0
spellingShingle 5200
Aktas, Serdar
Aktas, Hatice
Tetikoglu, Mehmet
Sagdık, Hacı Murat
Özcura, Fatih
Refractive Results Using a New Optical Biometry Device: Comparison With Ultrasound Biometry Data
title Refractive Results Using a New Optical Biometry Device: Comparison With Ultrasound Biometry Data
title_full Refractive Results Using a New Optical Biometry Device: Comparison With Ultrasound Biometry Data
title_fullStr Refractive Results Using a New Optical Biometry Device: Comparison With Ultrasound Biometry Data
title_full_unstemmed Refractive Results Using a New Optical Biometry Device: Comparison With Ultrasound Biometry Data
title_short Refractive Results Using a New Optical Biometry Device: Comparison With Ultrasound Biometry Data
title_sort refractive results using a new optical biometry device: comparison with ultrasound biometry data
topic 5200
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4674203/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26632900
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000002169
work_keys_str_mv AT aktasserdar refractiveresultsusinganewopticalbiometrydevicecomparisonwithultrasoundbiometrydata
AT aktashatice refractiveresultsusinganewopticalbiometrydevicecomparisonwithultrasoundbiometrydata
AT tetikoglumehmet refractiveresultsusinganewopticalbiometrydevicecomparisonwithultrasoundbiometrydata
AT sagdıkhacımurat refractiveresultsusinganewopticalbiometrydevicecomparisonwithultrasoundbiometrydata
AT ozcurafatih refractiveresultsusinganewopticalbiometrydevicecomparisonwithultrasoundbiometrydata