IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Keizo Watanabe
{"title":"Accuracy of Predicted Refraction Using Two Swept-Source Optical Coherence Biometers and an Intraoperative Aberrometer.","authors":"Keizo Watanabe","doi":"10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001628","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the refractive accuracy of Optiwave Refractive Analysis (ORA) using biometric measurements of ARGOS and OA-2000 in the same patient planned for a monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) insertion.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Single center.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Prospective, observational study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients scheduled for cataract surgery between January 2021 and March 2022 (expected corrected distance visual acuity of ≥0.8 postoperatively at 1-3 months) underwent preoperative ocular measurements using ARGOS and OA-2000 biometers on the same day, which were entered into the intraoperative aberrometer ORA system to assess the refractive accuracy of the IOL implant and postoperative spherical equivalent at 1-3 months. The refractive accuracy was compared between ORA using ARGOS (ORA-AR) and ORA using OA-2000 (ORA-OA). The primary endpoint was the comparison of the mean absolute refractive prediction error (MAE) between the ORA-AR and ORA-OA methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 117 eyes of 81 patients were evaluated (mean ± standard deviation [SD] age, 72.8 ± 7.4 years; male, 65.4%). The criteria for noninferiority were met between the ORA-AR and ORA-OA methods, as the upper boundary of the confidence interval (CI) was lower than the noninferiority margin of 0.10 D for the difference in MAE (-0.03 D; 95% CI: -0.061 to 0.001). MAE was numerically smaller with ORA-AR (0.243 ± 0.215 D) but not significantly different from that with ORA-OA (0.269 ± 0.246 D).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Postoperative MAE obtained using ORA-AR was noninferior to that of ORA-OA. However, the MAE and SD of refractive prediction errors with ORA-AR were numerically lower compared with ORA-OA.</p>","PeriodicalId":15214,"journal":{"name":"Journal of cataract and refractive surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of cataract and refractive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001628","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的: 在计划植入单焦点眼内人工晶体 (IOL) 的同一患者中,使用 ARGOS 和 OA-2000 的生物测量法比较 Optiwave Refractive Analysis (ORA) 的屈光准确性:设计:前瞻性观察研究:前瞻性观察研究:计划在2021年1月至2022年3月期间接受白内障手术的患者(预计术后1-3个月矫正远视力≥0.8)在同一天使用ARGOS和OA-2000生物测量仪进行术前眼部测量,并将测量结果输入术中外差计ORA系统,以评估人工晶体植入的屈光准确度和术后1-3个月的球面等效度。使用 ARGOS 的 ORA(ORA-AR)与使用 OA-2000 的 ORA(ORA-OA)的屈光准确度进行了比较。主要终点是比较 ORA-AR 和 ORA-OA 方法的平均绝对屈光预测误差 (MAE):共对 81 名患者的 117 只眼睛进行了评估(平均 ± 标准差 [SD] 年龄为 72.8 ± 7.4 岁;男性占 65.4%)。ORA-AR和ORA-OA方法均符合非劣效性标准,因为MAE差异的置信区间(CI)上限低于0.10 D的非劣效性边缘(-0.03 D;95% CI:-0.061至0.001)。ORA-AR的MAE数值较小(0.243 ± 0.215 D),但与ORA-OA的MAE(0.269 ± 0.246 D)无显著差异:结论:使用 ORA-AR 获得的术后 MAE 并不比 ORA-OA 差。结论:使用 ORA-AR 获得的术后 MAE 不比 ORA-OA 差,但 ORA-AR 的 MAE 和屈光预测误差的 SD 数值低于 ORA-OA。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Accuracy of Predicted Refraction Using Two Swept-Source Optical Coherence Biometers and an Intraoperative Aberrometer.

Purpose: To compare the refractive accuracy of Optiwave Refractive Analysis (ORA) using biometric measurements of ARGOS and OA-2000 in the same patient planned for a monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) insertion.

Setting: Single center.

Design: Prospective, observational study.

Methods: Patients scheduled for cataract surgery between January 2021 and March 2022 (expected corrected distance visual acuity of ≥0.8 postoperatively at 1-3 months) underwent preoperative ocular measurements using ARGOS and OA-2000 biometers on the same day, which were entered into the intraoperative aberrometer ORA system to assess the refractive accuracy of the IOL implant and postoperative spherical equivalent at 1-3 months. The refractive accuracy was compared between ORA using ARGOS (ORA-AR) and ORA using OA-2000 (ORA-OA). The primary endpoint was the comparison of the mean absolute refractive prediction error (MAE) between the ORA-AR and ORA-OA methods.

Results: A total of 117 eyes of 81 patients were evaluated (mean ± standard deviation [SD] age, 72.8 ± 7.4 years; male, 65.4%). The criteria for noninferiority were met between the ORA-AR and ORA-OA methods, as the upper boundary of the confidence interval (CI) was lower than the noninferiority margin of 0.10 D for the difference in MAE (-0.03 D; 95% CI: -0.061 to 0.001). MAE was numerically smaller with ORA-AR (0.243 ± 0.215 D) but not significantly different from that with ORA-OA (0.269 ± 0.246 D).

Conclusions: Postoperative MAE obtained using ORA-AR was noninferior to that of ORA-OA. However, the MAE and SD of refractive prediction errors with ORA-AR were numerically lower compared with ORA-OA.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
14.30%
发文量
259
审稿时长
8.5 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery (JCRS), a preeminent peer-reviewed monthly ophthalmology publication, is the official journal of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) and the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ESCRS). JCRS publishes high quality articles on all aspects of anterior segment surgery. In addition to original clinical studies, the journal features a consultation section, practical techniques, important cases, and reviews as well as basic science articles.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信