Journal of refractive surgery (Thorofare, N.J. : 1995) · 2026
Correlation Between Lens Density and Inter-Method Difference in Axial Length: Sum-of-Segments Versus Traditional Method on a Novel SS-OCT Biometer and the IOLMaster 700.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Yang Mingzhen, Zhang Yujuan, Mei Danye, Shi Yi, Zhong Xin, Grzybowski Andrzej, Wang Geng
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare axial length (AL) measurements from a novel swept-source optical coherence tomography (SSOCT) biometer ZW-30 (sum-of-segments [SOS], traditional modes) (TowardPi Medical Technology Ltd) with the IOLMaster700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG), and evaluate the correlation between lens nuclear density and inter-device AL differences, as well as their impact on intraocular lens formula accuracy.
METHODS: Patients undergoing cataract surgery with preoperative biometry performed by the ZW-30 and IOLMaster700 were included. Lens density was quantified with SS-OCT scans using ImageJ software (National Institutes of Health). Correlations between lens density and AL differences were analyzed. Refractive prediction accuracy of the Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), and the Prediction Enhanced by Artificial Intelligence and output Linearization-Debellemanière, Gatinel, and Saad (PEARL-DGS) formulas were evaluated 1 month postoperatively. Eyes were stratified into short (< 22.00 mm), medium (22.00 mm ≤ AL < 24.50 mm), and long (≥ 24.50 mm) AL groups.
RESULTS: In the entire cohort (n = 74), no significant AL difference was found among the three methods (P = .578). However, subgroup analysis revealed significant differences in medium and long eyes (both P < .01). Lens nuclear density correlated positively with AL in the entire cohort (r = 0.39 to 0.40, P < .001) and long AL group (r = 0.52 to 0.55, P < .05), and with AL discrepancy between ZW-30 SOS and IOLMaster 700 in long AL eyes (r = 0.49, P < .05). No correlation was found between lens density and formula prediction error (P > .05). The EVO and BUII formulas demonstrated significantly lower mean absolute error than the PEARL-DGS formula across all measurement modes (all P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Agreement between the ZW-30 and IOLMaster700 appeared to decrease in medium and long eyes, with discrepancy correlating with lens density in long eyes, although this finding requires confirmation in larger samples. The EVO and BUII formulas provided favorable refractive predictions compared with the PEARL-DGS.
METHODS: Patients undergoing cataract surgery with preoperative biometry performed by the ZW-30 and IOLMaster700 were included. Lens density was quantified with SS-OCT scans using ImageJ software (National Institutes of Health). Correlations between lens density and AL differences were analyzed. Refractive prediction accuracy of the Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), and the Prediction Enhanced by Artificial Intelligence and output Linearization-Debellemanière, Gatinel, and Saad (PEARL-DGS) formulas were evaluated 1 month postoperatively. Eyes were stratified into short (< 22.00 mm), medium (22.00 mm ≤ AL < 24.50 mm), and long (≥ 24.50 mm) AL groups.
RESULTS: In the entire cohort (n = 74), no significant AL difference was found among the three methods (P = .578). However, subgroup analysis revealed significant differences in medium and long eyes (both P < .01). Lens nuclear density correlated positively with AL in the entire cohort (r = 0.39 to 0.40, P < .001) and long AL group (r = 0.52 to 0.55, P < .05), and with AL discrepancy between ZW-30 SOS and IOLMaster 700 in long AL eyes (r = 0.49, P < .05). No correlation was found between lens density and formula prediction error (P > .05). The EVO and BUII formulas demonstrated significantly lower mean absolute error than the PEARL-DGS formula across all measurement modes (all P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Agreement between the ZW-30 and IOLMaster700 appeared to decrease in medium and long eyes, with discrepancy correlating with lens density in long eyes, although this finding requires confirmation in larger samples. The EVO and BUII formulas provided favorable refractive predictions compared with the PEARL-DGS.