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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |