Ocular Biometry and Refractive Prediction in Short Eyes: A Comparison of Two Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography-Based Biometers.

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q2 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL
Jiyun Seong, Sang Beom Han
{"title":"Ocular Biometry and Refractive Prediction in Short Eyes: A Comparison of Two Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography-Based Biometers.","authors":"Jiyun Seong, Sang Beom Han","doi":"10.3390/bioengineering12090983","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Purpose:</i></b> To compare the performance of two swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometers in the measurement of ocular biometry and the prediction of postoperative refractive errors in eyes with short axial length (AL). <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A total of 48 eyes from 29 patients with AL ≤ 22 mm were included. AL, anterior chamber depth (ACD), keratometry (K), and lens thickness (LT) measured using the IOLMaster<sup>®</sup> 700 and ARGOS<sup>®</sup> before cataract surgery were compared. The refractive error prediction accuracy of the two devices was also compared. <b><i>Results:</i></b> This study included four men (7 eyes) and 25 women (41 eyes), with an average age of 70.7 ± 8.1 years (mean ± SD; range, 47-82 years). The two devices demonstrated good agreement in measurements of ocular biometry with high intraclass correlation coefficients (AL = 0.975; ACD = 0.957; K = 0.988; LT = 0.994). However, AL and ACD were significantly shorter when measured with the IOLMaster<sup>®</sup> 700 compared to the ARGOS<sup>®</sup> (<i>p</i> < 0.001 for both). There was no significant difference in mean absolute prediction errors between the two devices (<i>p</i> = 0.423). The IOLMaster<sup>®</sup> 700 showed a significantly lower mean prediction error than the ARGOS<sup>®</sup> (+0.12 ± 0.39 diopters vs. +0.20 ± 0.39 diopters, <i>p</i> = 0.006), although the difference was of limited clinical relevance. There were no significant differences in the percentages of eyes within ± 0.50 D (77.1% vs. 75.0%, <i>p</i> = 0.811) and ± 1.00 D (100% vs. 97.9%, <i>p</i> = 0.315) of the predicted refractive error. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Although IOLMaster<sup>®</sup> 700 and ARGOS<sup>®</sup> showed good agreements in eyes with short AL, significant differences were observed in the measurements of AL and ACD. Both devices demonstrated good efficacy and comparable performance in predicting postoperative refractive errors.</p>","PeriodicalId":8874,"journal":{"name":"Bioengineering","volume":"12 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12467928/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioengineering","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12090983","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the performance of two swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometers in the measurement of ocular biometry and the prediction of postoperative refractive errors in eyes with short axial length (AL). Methods: A total of 48 eyes from 29 patients with AL ≤ 22 mm were included. AL, anterior chamber depth (ACD), keratometry (K), and lens thickness (LT) measured using the IOLMaster® 700 and ARGOS® before cataract surgery were compared. The refractive error prediction accuracy of the two devices was also compared. Results: This study included four men (7 eyes) and 25 women (41 eyes), with an average age of 70.7 ± 8.1 years (mean ± SD; range, 47-82 years). The two devices demonstrated good agreement in measurements of ocular biometry with high intraclass correlation coefficients (AL = 0.975; ACD = 0.957; K = 0.988; LT = 0.994). However, AL and ACD were significantly shorter when measured with the IOLMaster® 700 compared to the ARGOS® (p < 0.001 for both). There was no significant difference in mean absolute prediction errors between the two devices (p = 0.423). The IOLMaster® 700 showed a significantly lower mean prediction error than the ARGOS® (+0.12 ± 0.39 diopters vs. +0.20 ± 0.39 diopters, p = 0.006), although the difference was of limited clinical relevance. There were no significant differences in the percentages of eyes within ± 0.50 D (77.1% vs. 75.0%, p = 0.811) and ± 1.00 D (100% vs. 97.9%, p = 0.315) of the predicted refractive error. Conclusions: Although IOLMaster® 700 and ARGOS® showed good agreements in eyes with short AL, significant differences were observed in the measurements of AL and ACD. Both devices demonstrated good efficacy and comparable performance in predicting postoperative refractive errors.

眼生物测量和近视屈光预测:两种扫描源光学相干层析生物计的比较。
目的:比较两种扫描源光学相干层析生物测量仪在短眼轴长(AL)术后屈光不正的测量和预测中的性能。方法:选取AL≤22 mm患者29例48眼。比较白内障手术前使用IOLMaster®700和ARGOS®测量的AL、前房深度(ACD)、角膜度数(K)和晶状体厚度(LT)。比较了两种设备的屈光误差预测精度。结果:男性4例(7眼),女性25例(41眼),平均年龄70.7±8.1岁(mean±SD;范围47 ~ 82岁)。两种仪器在眼生物计量测量中表现出良好的一致性,具有较高的类内相关系数(AL = 0.975; ACD = 0.957; K = 0.988; LT = 0.994)。然而,与ARGOS®相比,使用IOLMaster®700测量AL和ACD显著缩短(p < 0.001)。两种设备的平均绝对预测误差无显著差异(p = 0.423)。IOLMaster®700的平均预测误差明显低于ARGOS®(+0.12±0.39屈光度vs +0.20±0.39屈光度,p = 0.006),尽管差异具有有限的临床相关性。在±0.50 D (77.1% vs. 75.0%, p = 0.811)和±1.00 D (100% vs. 97.9%, p = 0.315)内预测屈光不正的眼睛百分比无显著差异。结论:尽管IOLMaster®700和ARGOS®在短AL的眼睛中显示出良好的一致性,但在AL和ACD的测量中观察到显着差异。两种设备在预测术后屈光不正方面均表现出良好的疗效和可比性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Bioengineering
Bioengineering Chemical Engineering-Bioengineering
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
8.70%
发文量
661
期刊介绍: Aims Bioengineering (ISSN 2306-5354) provides an advanced forum for the science and technology of bioengineering. It publishes original research papers, comprehensive reviews, communications and case reports. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. All aspects of bioengineering are welcomed from theoretical concepts to education and applications. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. There are, in addition, four key features of this Journal: ● We are introducing a new concept in scientific and technical publications “The Translational Case Report in Bioengineering”. It is a descriptive explanatory analysis of a transformative or translational event. Understanding that the goal of bioengineering scholarship is to advance towards a transformative or clinical solution to an identified transformative/clinical need, the translational case report is used to explore causation in order to find underlying principles that may guide other similar transformative/translational undertakings. ● Manuscripts regarding research proposals and research ideas will be particularly welcomed. ● Electronic files and software regarding the full details of the calculation and experimental procedure, if unable to be published in a normal way, can be deposited as supplementary material. ● We also accept manuscripts communicating to a broader audience with regard to research projects financed with public funds. Scope ● Bionics and biological cybernetics: implantology; bio–abio interfaces ● Bioelectronics: wearable electronics; implantable electronics; “more than Moore” electronics; bioelectronics devices ● Bioprocess and biosystems engineering and applications: bioprocess design; biocatalysis; bioseparation and bioreactors; bioinformatics; bioenergy; etc. ● Biomolecular, cellular and tissue engineering and applications: tissue engineering; chromosome engineering; embryo engineering; cellular, molecular and synthetic biology; metabolic engineering; bio-nanotechnology; micro/nano technologies; genetic engineering; transgenic technology ● Biomedical engineering and applications: biomechatronics; biomedical electronics; biomechanics; biomaterials; biomimetics; biomedical diagnostics; biomedical therapy; biomedical devices; sensors and circuits; biomedical imaging and medical information systems; implants and regenerative medicine; neurotechnology; clinical engineering; rehabilitation engineering ● Biochemical engineering and applications: metabolic pathway engineering; modeling and simulation ● Translational bioengineering
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信