摘要
目的: 比较新一代屈光分析仪OPD-ScanⅢ、扫频源眼前节光学相干断层扫描分析仪CASIA2与像差仪iTrace、三维眼前节分析仪Pentacam测量白内障患者角膜总高阶像差(tHOA)、角膜球面像差(SA)的差异性和一致性。方法: 系列病例研究。选取2021年5—8月在天津医科大学眼科医院白内障科行超声乳化白内障吸除联合人工晶状体植入术的白内障患者123例(123眼)。所有患者均采用iTrace、Pentacam、OPD-ScanⅢ和CASIA2测量角膜参数, 记录以角膜顶点为中心4 mm直径下的角膜tHOA及6 mm直径下的角膜SA的均方根(RMS)值。4种设备间测量结果的差异性分析采用两因素方差分析或Friedman检验, 相关性分析采用Person或Spearman相关分析。不同设备间测量结果的一致性评价采用Bland-Altman分析。结果: 4种设备测量角膜tHOA总体差异有统计学意义(Z=134.79, P<0.001)。两两比较显示, CASIA2和Pentacam测得的角膜tHOA差异无统计学意义, 且均高于OPD-ScanⅢ和iTrace(均P<0.001), OPD-ScanⅢ和iTrace测量结果差异无统计学意义。iTrace、Pentacam、OPD-ScanⅢ和CASIA2测量的角膜SA总体差异有统计学意义(F=114.72, P<0.001), 结果分别为(0.291±0.079) μm、(0.445±0.147) μm、(0.310±0.092) μm和(0.277±0.131)μm。两两比较显示, OPD-ScanⅢ和iTrace、CASIA2和iTrace结果间差异均无统计学意义, 其余各组间差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。相关性分析显示, 4种设备测量角膜tHOA和角膜SA均呈正相关性(r=0.27~0.69, 均P<0.001)。Bland-Altman分析显示, iTrace与OPD-ScanⅢ测量角膜tHOA及角膜SA的95%一致性界限(95%LoA)分别为-0.11~0.09、-0.15~0.12, 均显示临床可接受的一致性, 4.07%~5.69%的测量值在95%LoA外, 其余设备测量结果间95%LoA较宽, 一致性较差。结论: OPD-ScanⅢ与iTrace测量以角膜顶点为中心4 mm直径下的角膜tHOA和6 mm直径下的角膜SA结果无差异, 相关性及一致性好上, 但除此之外的几种设备�
Objective:To compare the difference and agreement of corneal total higher-order aberration(tHOA)and corneal spherical aberration(SA)measured by the new generation of refractive analyzer(OPD-ScanⅢ),swept-source anterior segment optical coherence tomography(SS-AS-OCT)device(CASIA2),raytracing aberrometer(iTrace)and 3D anterior segment diagnostic analyzer(Pentacam)in cataract patients.Methods:In this case series study,a total of 123 patients(123 eyes)diagnosed with cataract were selected before phacoemulsification in the Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital during May to August 2021.All the patients were examined for corneal parameters by iTrace,Pentacam,OPD-ScanⅢand CASIA2.The root mean square(RMS)of corneal total higher-order aberration(tHOA)in the central 4 mm and corneal spherical aberration(SA)in the central 6 mm of the corneal apex position were recorded.The difference of measurement results between four devices were analyzed by Two-way analysis of variance or Friedman test.Correlation was evaluated using Person or Spearman correlation analysis and the agreement was evaluated using Bland-Altman plots.Results:There were significant differences between four devices for corneal tHOA(Z=134.79,P<0.001).There was no significant difference between CASIA2 and Pentacam or OPD-ScanⅢand iTrace for corneal tHOA.The corneal tHOA measured by Pentacam and CASIA2 were higher than that measured by OPD-ScanⅢand iTrace(P<0.001).There were significant differences between four devices for corneal SA(F=114.72,P<0.001).The corneal SA was 0.291±0.079μm,0.445±0.147μm,0.310±0.092μm and 0.277±0.131μm respectively by iTrace,Pentacam,OPD-ScanⅢand CASIA2.There was no statistically significant difference between OPD-ScanⅢand iTrace or CASIA2 and iTrace.Pairwise comparison of the corneal SA in other groups showed significant difference(P<0.05).The results of corneal tHOA and corneal SA measured by four devices were positively correlated(r=0.27-0.69,P<0.001).Bland-Altman analysis showed that the 95%limits of agreement(
作者
高奕晨
杨军
蒋元丰
李美萨
林松
田芳
Yichen Gao;Jun Yang;Yuanfeng Jiang;Meisa Li;Song Lin;Fang Tian(Tianjin Key Laboratory of Retinal Functions and Diseases,Tianjin Branch of National Clinical Research Center for Ocular Disease,Eye Institute and School of Optometry,Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital,Tianjin 300384,China)
出处
《中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志》
CAS
CSCD
2022年第10期752-759,共8页
Chinese Journal Of Optometry Ophthalmology And Visual Science
基金
天津市教委科研计划项目(2019KJ176)。
