Assessment of Anterior Chamber Depth Using Visante Optical Coherence Tomography, Slitlamp Optical Coherence Tomography, IOL Master, Pentacam and Orbscan IIz
Assessment of Anterior Chamber Depth Using Visante Optical Coherence Tomography, Slitlamp Optical Coherence Tomography, IOL Master, Pentacam and Orbscan IIz
复制标题
DOI：
10.1159/000313815
复制
发表时间：
2010-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Alimgil, Levent
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Dinc, Umut Asli;Gorgun, Ebru;Alimgil, Levent
目的：评价和比较不同眼前节成像技术对前房深度（ACD）的影响。研究方法：招募了40例患者的80只健康眼，并使用Visante光学相干断层扫描（OCT）、裂隙灯（SL）OCT、IOL Master、Pentacam和Orbscan IIz前瞻性地确定了ACD的3个连续测量值。通过单因素方差分析和Bland-Altman分析评价测量值之间器械间差异的统计学显著性。通过重复测量ANOVA分析3次连续测量的重复性。结果如下：Visante OCT、SL-OCT、IOL Master、Pentacam和Orbscan IIz的平均ACD分别为2.98 ± 0.29、2.85 ± 0.29、3.33 ± 0.42、2.93 ± 0.30和2.80 ± 0.29 mm。所有器械均显示出较高的期内重复性（重复测量ANOVA，p > 0.05）。IOL Master获得的ACD测量值显著大于其他器械。Visante OCT和SL-OCT、Pentacam和Orbscan IIz检测到的ACD值在临床上不可互换，即使未检测到统计学显著差异。结论：尽管使用所有模态的非接触式ACD测量易于处理，并表现出良好的可重复性，但受试器械被视为不兼容。因此，临床医生在使用各种器械进行ACD评估时应考虑不同的模态。版权所有（C）2010 S. Karger AG，巴塞尔
Aims: To assess and compare the anterior chamber depth (ACD) by different anterior segment imaging techniques. Methods: Eighty healthy eyes of 40 patients were recruited, and 3 consecutive measurements of ACD were determined prospectively utilizing Visante optical coherence tomography (OCT), slitlamp (SL) OCT, IOL Master, Pentacam and Orbscan IIz. The statistical significance of interdevice differences between measurements was evaluated by one-way ANOVA and Bland-Altman analysis. The repeatability of 3 consecutive measurements was analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA. Results: The mean ACD was 2.98 +/- 0.29, 2.85 +/- 0.29, 3.33 +/- 0.42, 2.93 +/- 0.30 and 2.80 +/- 0.29 mm with Visante OCT, SL-OCT, IOL Master, Pentacam and Orbscan IIz, respectively. All devices displayed a high intrasession repeatability (repeated-measures ANOVA, p > 0.05). ACD measurements obtained by the IOL Master were significantly greater compared to other devices. ACD values detected by Visante OCT and SL-OCT, Pentacam and Orbscan IIz were not clinically interchangeable, even though no statistically significant difference was detected. Conclusion: Although noncontact ACD measurements using all modalities were easy to handle and demonstrated good repeatability, the tested devices were not regarded as compatible. Hence, the clinician should take the different modalities into consideration during ACD assessment using various devices. Copyright (C) 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel