Journal of refractive surgery (Thorofare, N.J. : 1995) · 2013
Agreement between Pentacam and IOL master in patients undergoing toric IOL implantation.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lee Bradford W, Galor Anat, Feuer William J, Pouyeh Bozorgmehr, Pelletier Jesse S, Vaddavalli Pravin K, Lemelman Benjamin T, See Craig, Yoo Sonia H
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To investigate inter-device agreement between the Pentacam (Optikgerate GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany) and IOLMaster (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany) in measuring corneal power, cylinder, and axis of astigmatism.
METHODS: Retrospective case series reviewing the status of eyes after toric IOL implantation to evaluate inter-device agreement in measuring corneal power, cylinder, and axis of astigmatism.
RESULTS: Forty-nine eyes from 41 patients were evaluated. Agreement for corneal power and cylinder were deemed good and moderate, with 95% limits of agreement of -1.02 to +1.13 and -1.37 to +1.09 diopters (D), respectively. Agreement for axis of astigmatism was only fair, with a mean absolute difference of 8.9 degrees (range: 0.3 to 37.7 degrees, standard deviation: 8.79 degrees). Thirty percent of eyes had a 10-degree or greater difference in axis measurements, and 13% of eyes had a 20-degree or greater difference in measurements. Analysis by multivariate logistic regression showed higher cylinder powers associated with discrepant corneal power measurements (odds ratio: 3.46, P = .02), and increasing age was associated with discrepant axis measurements (odds ratio: 1.09, P = .03). Overall, there was no significant difference in accuracy predicting postoperative spherical equivalent refraction.
CONCLUSIONS: Pentacam and IOLMaster agree well for corneal power but less so for cylinder and axis of astigmatism and thus cannot be used interchangeably.
METHODS: Retrospective case series reviewing the status of eyes after toric IOL implantation to evaluate inter-device agreement in measuring corneal power, cylinder, and axis of astigmatism.
RESULTS: Forty-nine eyes from 41 patients were evaluated. Agreement for corneal power and cylinder were deemed good and moderate, with 95% limits of agreement of -1.02 to +1.13 and -1.37 to +1.09 diopters (D), respectively. Agreement for axis of astigmatism was only fair, with a mean absolute difference of 8.9 degrees (range: 0.3 to 37.7 degrees, standard deviation: 8.79 degrees). Thirty percent of eyes had a 10-degree or greater difference in axis measurements, and 13% of eyes had a 20-degree or greater difference in measurements. Analysis by multivariate logistic regression showed higher cylinder powers associated with discrepant corneal power measurements (odds ratio: 3.46, P = .02), and increasing age was associated with discrepant axis measurements (odds ratio: 1.09, P = .03). Overall, there was no significant difference in accuracy predicting postoperative spherical equivalent refraction.
CONCLUSIONS: Pentacam and IOLMaster agree well for corneal power but less so for cylinder and axis of astigmatism and thus cannot be used interchangeably.