Cargando…

Comparison of a new swept-source optical biometer with a partial coherence interferometry

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to compare the biometric parameters and intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation by a new swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) biometer with those by a partial coherence interferometry (PCI) biometer. METHODS: Medical records of 175 eyes from 17...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lee, Hyo Kyung, Kim, Mee Kum
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6194682/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30340561
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-018-0936-6
_version_ 1783364274450595840
author Lee, Hyo Kyung
Kim, Mee Kum
author_facet Lee, Hyo Kyung
Kim, Mee Kum
author_sort Lee, Hyo Kyung
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to compare the biometric parameters and intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation by a new swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) biometer with those by a partial coherence interferometry (PCI) biometer. METHODS: Medical records of 175 eyes from 175 patients were retrospectively reviewed. One of two monofocal IOLs (Tecnis ZCB00 or Acrysof SA60AT) were implanted in the eyes. Axial length (AL), mean keratometry (Km), J0, J45 and anterior chamber depth (ACD) were compared between PCI and SS-OCT biometers. The refractive mean error (ME) and refractive mean absolute error (MAE) were also compared. Examination failure rates were calculated in each device. RESULTS: Out of 175 eyes, 150 eyes were successfully examined by both devices. AL was measured slightly shorter when using SS-OCT than PCI biometer, while Km was measured higher (P < .0001, P = .03, respectively, paired t-test). J0, J45 and ACD were not significantly different between two devices. ME and MAE calculated using SRK-T, Hoffer Q, and Haigis formula were not significantly different except MAE calculated with Haigis formula for Tecnis ZCB00 IOLs (P = .03, paired t-test). The examination failure rates were 14.29 and 1.14% when using the PCI and SS-OCT biometers, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: AL and Km don’t seem to be comparable between two devices, while J0, J45(,) and ACD do. IOL power calculation using SRK-T and Hoffer Q was correlated between the devices. The penetration ability of a SS-OCT biometer is superior.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6194682
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61946822018-10-25 Comparison of a new swept-source optical biometer with a partial coherence interferometry Lee, Hyo Kyung Kim, Mee Kum BMC Ophthalmol Research Article BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to compare the biometric parameters and intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation by a new swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) biometer with those by a partial coherence interferometry (PCI) biometer. METHODS: Medical records of 175 eyes from 175 patients were retrospectively reviewed. One of two monofocal IOLs (Tecnis ZCB00 or Acrysof SA60AT) were implanted in the eyes. Axial length (AL), mean keratometry (Km), J0, J45 and anterior chamber depth (ACD) were compared between PCI and SS-OCT biometers. The refractive mean error (ME) and refractive mean absolute error (MAE) were also compared. Examination failure rates were calculated in each device. RESULTS: Out of 175 eyes, 150 eyes were successfully examined by both devices. AL was measured slightly shorter when using SS-OCT than PCI biometer, while Km was measured higher (P < .0001, P = .03, respectively, paired t-test). J0, J45 and ACD were not significantly different between two devices. ME and MAE calculated using SRK-T, Hoffer Q, and Haigis formula were not significantly different except MAE calculated with Haigis formula for Tecnis ZCB00 IOLs (P = .03, paired t-test). The examination failure rates were 14.29 and 1.14% when using the PCI and SS-OCT biometers, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: AL and Km don’t seem to be comparable between two devices, while J0, J45(,) and ACD do. IOL power calculation using SRK-T and Hoffer Q was correlated between the devices. The penetration ability of a SS-OCT biometer is superior. BioMed Central 2018-10-19 /pmc/articles/PMC6194682/ /pubmed/30340561 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-018-0936-6 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Lee, Hyo Kyung
Kim, Mee Kum
Comparison of a new swept-source optical biometer with a partial coherence interferometry
title Comparison of a new swept-source optical biometer with a partial coherence interferometry
title_full Comparison of a new swept-source optical biometer with a partial coherence interferometry
title_fullStr Comparison of a new swept-source optical biometer with a partial coherence interferometry
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of a new swept-source optical biometer with a partial coherence interferometry
title_short Comparison of a new swept-source optical biometer with a partial coherence interferometry
title_sort comparison of a new swept-source optical biometer with a partial coherence interferometry
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6194682/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30340561
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-018-0936-6
work_keys_str_mv AT leehyokyung comparisonofanewsweptsourceopticalbiometerwithapartialcoherenceinterferometry
AT kimmeekum comparisonofanewsweptsourceopticalbiometerwithapartialcoherenceinterferometry