ABSTRACT
@#AIM: To compare the differences of corneal diameter measured with wavelight anterior segment analyzer(Wavelight),IOL-master optical bio-measurement(LS900), anterior segment OCT(AS-OCT)and gauge.<p>METHODS: Totally 89 patients(177 eyes)with myopia who want to accept ICL were examined before operation with more than five kinds of instruments respectively, white to white(WTW)were examined with Wavelight, IOL-master, LS900 and gauge, angle to angle(ATA)with AS-OCT. Then the size of ICL was calculated based on the value of gauge. The vault of ICL was examined with OCT 3mo after operation.<p>RESULTS: WTW was(12.45±0.73, 11.96±0.39, 11.92±0.36, 11.49±0.30)mm measured by Wavelight, IOL-Master, LS900 and gauge respectively, ATA was(11.80±0.44)mm with AS-OCT. The value of gauge was the smallest one among them(all <i>P</i><0.01). Among four instruments, there was no statistical difference between LS900 and AS-OCT(<i>P</i>=0.098), they can instead of each other; there were differences among other instruments(<i>P</i><0.01). The size of ICL based on gauge was(12.77±0.37)mm. The vault of ICL is(537.41±181.22)μm 3mo after implantation obtained by OCT.<p>CONCLUSION: Gauge is ideal tool for measuring corneal diameter, it cannot be instead. Wavelight, IOL Master, LS900 and AS-OCT can be taken as reference.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To compare the results of anterior segment biometry including white-to-white (WTW) between scanning-slit topography (ORBscan IIz(R), Bausch & Lomb), optical low-coherence reflectometry (OLCR) biometry (Lenstar(R), Haag-Streit), and Castroviejo calipers. METHODS: Measurements on 72 eyes of 36 patients that underwent refractive surgery were measured using ORBscan(R), Lenstar(R), and calipers and compared. Ocular biometry parameters used in this study included the WTW, central corneal thickness, anterior chamber depth (ACD), keratometry, and pupil size. RESULTS: The WTW measurements using ORBscan(R) and calipers (11.57 +/- 0.35 mm and 11.58 +/- 0.34 mm, respectively) were statistically similar. However, the measurement using Lenstar(R) (12.05 +/- 0.40 mm) was significantly greater than with the other methods (p < 0.001). Central corneal thickness and keratometry measurements using ORBscan(R) were greater than when using Lenstar(R) (p = 0.01 for both). ACD and pupil size measurement using Lenstar(R) were greater than when using ORBscan(R) (p < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Because WTW and ACD measurements using Lenstar(R) were greater than when using ORBscan(R) and calipers, unexpected high-vaulting may be observed due to the selection of a larger-sized posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens. Therefore, the differences in measurements obtained when using these methods should be considered.
Subject(s)
Humans , Anterior Chamber , Biometry , Phakic Intraocular Lenses , Pupil , Refractive Surgical ProceduresABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To compare the results of anterior segment biometry including white-to-white (WTW) between scanning-slit topography (ORBscan IIz(R), Bausch & Lomb), optical low-coherence reflectometry (OLCR) biometry (Lenstar(R), Haag-Streit), and Castroviejo calipers. METHODS: Measurements on 72 eyes of 36 patients that underwent refractive surgery were measured using ORBscan(R), Lenstar(R), and calipers and compared. Ocular biometry parameters used in this study included the WTW, central corneal thickness, anterior chamber depth (ACD), keratometry, and pupil size. RESULTS: The WTW measurements using ORBscan(R) and calipers (11.57 +/- 0.35 mm and 11.58 +/- 0.34 mm, respectively) were statistically similar. However, the measurement using Lenstar(R) (12.05 +/- 0.40 mm) was significantly greater than with the other methods (p < 0.001). Central corneal thickness and keratometry measurements using ORBscan(R) were greater than when using Lenstar(R) (p = 0.01 for both). ACD and pupil size measurement using Lenstar(R) were greater than when using ORBscan(R) (p < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Because WTW and ACD measurements using Lenstar(R) were greater than when using ORBscan(R) and calipers, unexpected high-vaulting may be observed due to the selection of a larger-sized posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens. Therefore, the differences in measurements obtained when using these methods should be considered.