Prediction error after pediatric cataract surgery with intraocular lens implantation: Contact versus immersion A-scan biometry
Prediction error after pediatric cataract surgery with intraocular lens implantation: Contact versus immersion A-scan biometry
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.09.023
复制
发表时间：
2011-03-01
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
Wilson, M. Edward
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Trivedi, Rupal H.;Wilson, M. Edward
目的：评价接触式和浸入式A型超声生物测量法计算儿童人工晶状体的准确性。研究对象：美国南卡罗来纳州查尔斯顿的暴风眼研究所。设计：诊断性测试或技术评估。方法：回顾分析一项前瞻性研究的资料，这些儿童眼在术后14天至3个月内植入了AcrySof SN60WF人工晶状体，且屈光状态良好。结果：22例(22眼)患者的平均手术年龄为4.8岁±4.1岁(SD)。接触组和浸泡组的平均预测误差分别为+0.4+/-0.7 D和-0.4+/-0.8 D(P<；.001)，平均绝对预测误差分别为0.7+/-0.4 D和0.7+/-0.6 D(P=.694)。接触法5眼(23%)和浸润法11眼(50%)的绝对预测误差小于0.5D。术后平均等效球镜为+2.9+/-2.5D，与接触式A超的平均预测屈光度(3.3+/-2.8D；P=0.010)有显著差异，但与浸入式A超的预测屈光度(2.5+/-2.5D；P=0.065)无显著差异。结论：儿童术后接触式生物测量法和浸没式A超生物测量法的屈光度预测误差有显著差异。根据研究结果，建议采用浸没式A超技术计算儿童人工晶状体的屈光度。
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of pediatric intraocular lens (IOL) calculations performed using contact and immersion A-scan biometry.SETTING: Storm Eye Institute, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.DESIGN: Evaluation of diagnostic test or technology.METHODS: Data from a prospective study of pediatric eyes that had in-the-bag implantation of an AcrySof SN6OWF IOL and had refraction results available from 14 days to 3 months postoperatively were retrospectively analyzed. The contact and immersion A-scan biometry techniques were performed in each eye and compared.RESULTS: The mean age at surgery of the 22 patients (22 eyes) was 4.8 years +/- 4.1 (SD). The mean prediction error was + 0.4 +/- 0.7 diopter (D) in the contact group and -0.4 +/- 0.8 D in the immersion group (P < .001) and the mean absolute prediction error, 0.7 +/- 0.4 D and 0.7 +/- 0.6 D, respectively (P = .694). The absolute prediction error was less than 0.5 D in 5 eyes (23%) using the contact technique and 11 eyes (50%) using the immersion technique. The mean postoperative spherical equivalent was +2.9 +/- 2.5 D, which was significantly different from the mean predicted refraction for contact A-scan (3.3 +/- 2.8 D; P = .010) but not immersion A-scan (2.5 +/- 2.5 D; P = .065).CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant difference in prediction error between postoperative refractive results obtained with contact biometry and immersion A-scan biometry in children. Based on the results, the immersion A-scan technique is recommended for pediatric IOL power calculation.