Офтальмохирургия. 2014; : 50-54
ДОСТОВЕРНОСТЬ ПОКАЗАТЕЛЕЙ ПРИБОРОВ, ИЗМЕРЯЮЩИХ ГЕОМЕТРИЧЕСКИЕ ПАРАМЕТРЫ РОГОВИЦЫ
https://doi.org/undefinedАннотация
Цель. Выявление оптически значимой зоны измерения и оценка точности данных геометрических параметров роговицы кератометрических приборов, основанных на различных методах исследования
Материал и методы. В клиническое исследование вошли 70 пациентов (90 глаз), которым было проведено изучение геометрических параметров роговицы методом трёх измерений, полученных в результате различных осмотров. По величине отклонения оценивалась точность приборов: авторефрактокератометра (АК) Huvitz (Южная Корея), щелевой лампы со встроенным кератометром (РК) Zeiss (Германия), топографа CT-1000 (КТ) Shin-Nippon (Япония), шеймпфлюг-камеры Pentacam HR Oculus (Германия), оптического когерентного интерферометра IOL-Master (ИМ) Zeiss (Германия). Также сравнивались результаты измерений каждого прибора в трехмиллиметровой зоне роговицы по отношению к показателям ручной кератометрии, а у топографа CT-1000 ShinNippon и шеймпфлюг-камеры Pentacam HR – дополнительно в пятии семимиллиметровой зонах.
Результаты. Наименьшая величина различий между измерениями наблюдалась у РК (0,17±0,15), ИМ (0,21±0,22) и Pentacam в трехмиллиметровой зоне (0,22±0,16), наибольшая – у АК (0,45±0,28) (р≤0,05). При сравнении данных относительно показателей РК минимальные расхождения были у ИМ (0,16±0,26) и компьютерного топографа Pentacam в трех(0,11±0,13), пяти(0,10±0,06) и семимиллиметровой (0,11±0,06) зонах (р>0,05). Максимальные отличия были зарегистрированы у прибора КТ в пятимиллиметровой зоне (0,63±0,29).
Заключение. Наиболее достоверными являются показатели приборов ручной кератометрии, Pentacam и ИОЛ-Мастер, трехмиллиметровая зона измерения является наиболее оптически значимой, так как имеет наименьшее количество расхождений между исследованиями.
Список литературы
1. Балашевич Л.И., Качанов А.Б. Клиническая корнеотопография и аберрометрия. – М., 2008. – 167 с.
2. Ковеленова И.В., Безик С.В., Пикуш С.В. Клинический опыт имплантации торических асферических ИОЛ // Современные технологии катарактальной и рефракционной хирургии – 2011: Материалы науч.-практ. конф. – М., 2011. – С. 125-127.
3. Малютина И.С., Должич Р.Р., Бубнов И.В. и др. Рефракционная хирургия катаракты: собственные результаты имплантации торических ИОЛ // Съезд офтальмологов России, 9-й: Тез. докл. – М., 2010. – С. 214.
4. Шилова Т.Ю., Анисимова С.Ю., Анисимов С.И. Коррекция астигматизма торическими линзами Acrysof Toric® после факоэмульсификации катаракты // Федоровские чтения – 2009: Всероссийская науч.-практ. конф. с международным участием, 8-я: Тез. докл. – М., 2009. – С. 303.
5. Ahmed Iqbal K. Pentacam: what every cataract surgeon needs to know // Сataract Refract. Surg. Today. – 2007. – Jan. – P. 25-26.
6. Ale J.B., Power J., Zohs K., Cunningham F. Refractive and visual outcome of toric intraocular lens implantation following cataract surgery // Nepal J. Ophthalmoljgy. – 2012. – Vol. 4, № 7. – P. 37-44.
7. Belin Michael W. Reading the Pentacam’s Maps // Сataract Refract. Surg. Today. – 2007. – Jan. – P. 16-18.
8. Cucera A., Lang G.K., Buchwald H.J. Intraand interindividual comparison of corneal refraction measured by IOL-Master vs. corneal topography // Klin. Monbl. Augenheilkd. – 2008. – Vol. 225, № 11. – P. 957-962.
9. Engren A.L., Behndig A. Anterior chamber depth, intraocular lens position, and refractive outcomes after cataract surgery // J. Cataract Refract. Surg. – 2013. – Vol. 39, № 4. – P. 572-577.
10. Ernest P., Potvin R. Effects of preoperative corneal astigmatism orientation on results with a low-cylinder-power toric intraocular lens // J. Cataract Refract. Surg. – 2011. – Vol. 37, № 4. – P. 727-732.
11. Gonen T., Cosar C.B., Sener B., Keskinbora K.H. Comparison of keratometric data obtained by automated keratometer, Dicon CT 200, Allegro Topolyzer and Pentacam // J. Refract. Surg. – 2012. – Vol. 28, № 8. – P. 557-561.
12. Jong T., Sheehan M.T., Dubbelman M. et al. Shape of the anterior cornea: comparison of height data from 4 corneal topographers // J. Cataract Refract. Surg. – 2013. – Vol. 39, № 10. – P. 1570-1580.
13. Kim S.M., Choi J., Choi S. Refractive Predictability of Partial Coherence Interferometry and Factors that can Affect It // Korean J. Ophthalmol. – 2009. – Vol. 23, № 1. – P. 6-12.
14. Kohnen T. Astigmatism measurements for cataract and refractive surgery // J. Refract. Surg. – 2012. – Vol. 38, № 12. – P. 2065.
15. Lee H., Chung J.L., Kim E.K. et al. Univariate and bivariate polar value analysis of corneal astigmatism measurements obtained with 6 instruments // J. Cataract Refract. Surg. – 2012. – Vol. 38. – P. 16081615.
16. Mendicute J., Irigoyen C., Ruiz M. et al. Toric intraocular lens versus opposite clear corneal incisions to correct astigmatism in eyes having cataract surgery // J. Cataract Refract. Surg. – 2009. – Vol. 35, № 3. – P. 451-458.
17. Michelson Marc A. Corneal elevation, slope, and curvature // Сataract Refract. Surg. Today. – 2007, Jan. – P. 21-23.
18. Mingo-Botín D., Muñoz-Negrete F. J., Won Kim H. R. et al. Comparison of toric intraocular lenses and peripheral corneal relaxing incisions to treat astigmatism during cataract surgery // J. Cataract Refract. Surg. – 2010. – Vol. 36, № 10. – P. 1700-1708.
19. Perez M. Analyzing and tracking preoperative and intraoperative astigmatism // J. Fr. Ophtalmol. – 2012. – Vol. 35, № 3. – P. 196-201.
20. Potvin R., Gundersen K.G., Masket S. et al. Prospective multicenter study of toric IOL outcomes when dual zone automated keratometry is used for astigmatism planning // J. Refract. Surg. – 2013. – Vol. 29, № 12. – P. 804-809.
21. Saad E., Shammas M.C., Shammas H.J. Scheimpflug corneal power measurements for intraocular lens power calculation in cataract surgery // Am. J. Ophthalmol. – 2013. – Vol. 156, № 3. – P. 460-467.
22. Srivannaboon S., Chirapapaisan C., Chonpimai P. Comparison of corneal astigmatism and axis location in cataract patients measured by total corneal power, automated keratometry, and simulated keratometry // J. Cataract Refract. Surg. – 2012. – Vol. 38, № 12. – P. 2088-2093.
23. Sun X.Y., Vicary D., Montgomery P., Griffiths M. Toric intraocular lenses for correcting astigmatism in 130 eyes // Ophthalmology. – 2000. – Vol. 107, № 9. – P. 1776-1781.
24. Symes R.J., Say M.J., Ursell P.G. Scheimpflug keratometry versus conventional automated keratometry in routine cataract surgery // J. Cataract Refract. Surg. – 2010. – Vol. 36, № 7. – P. 1107-1114.
25. Woodhams Trevor J. Pentacam for the refractive IOL surgeon // Сataract Refract. Surg. Today. – 2007. – Jan. – P. 23-25.
26. Yong Park C., Do J.R., Chuck R.S. Predicting postoperative astigmatism using Scheimpflug keratometry (Pentacam) and automated keratometry (IOLMaster) // Curr. Eye Res. – 2012. – Vol. 37, № 12. – P. 1091-1098.
Fyodorov Journal of Ophthalmic Surgery. 2014; : 50-54
RELIABILITY OF INDICATORS OF DEVICES MEASURING GEOMETRIC PARAMETERS OF CORNEA
https://doi.org/undefinedAbstract
Purpose. To determine an optically significant measurement zone and to assess an accuracy of geometrical corneal parameters measurements using different keratometric devices based on different measurement techniques.
Material and methods. The clinical trial included 70 patients (90 eyes), where a study of corneal geometrical parameters was performed by the method of three measurements obtained during different examinations. According to the value of measurement deviation the accuracy of the tested devices was assessed: the Huvitz autorefractor-keratometer (AK) (South Korea), the Zeiss manual keratometry built-in slit lamp (MK) (Germany), the Shin-Nippon topographer CT-1000 (CT) (Japan), the Pentacam HR Oculus Scheimpflug camera (Germany), the Zeiss IOL-Master optical coherence interferometer (IM) (Germany). Additionally, measurements of each device in a 3mm zone of cornea were compared to the data obtained by the manual keratometry and in the Shin-Nippon topographer CT-1000 and the Pentacam HR Oculus Scheimpflug camera the 5mm and 7mm zones data were used as well.
Results. The least variation among measurements was registered in the MK (0.17±0.15), the IM (0.21±0.22) and the Pentacam in the 3mm zone (0.22±0.16); the largest variation was registered in the AK (0.45±0.28) (p≤0.05). The least differences from the MK data were registered in the IM (0.16±0.26) and the Pentacam computer topographer in the 3mm (0.11±0.13), 5mm (0.10±0.06), and 7mm (0.11±0.06) zones (p>0.05). The largest differences were registered in the CT in the 5mm zone (0.63±0.29).
Conclusion. The most reliable results among the tested devices are obtained by the manual keratometry, the Pentacam and the IOL-Master. The 3mm zone is the most optically significant because it has the least quantity of divergences between examinations.
References
1. Balashevich L.I., Kachanov A.B. Klinicheskaya korneotopografiya i aberrometriya. – M., 2008. – 167 s.
2. Kovelenova I.V., Bezik S.V., Pikush S.V. Klinicheskii opyt implantatsii toricheskikh asfericheskikh IOL // Sovremennye tekhnologii kataraktal'noi i refraktsionnoi khirurgii – 2011: Materialy nauch.-prakt. konf. – M., 2011. – S. 125-127.
3. Malyutina I.S., Dolzhich R.R., Bubnov I.V. i dr. Refraktsionnaya khirurgiya katarakty: sobstvennye rezul'taty implantatsii toricheskikh IOL // S\"ezd oftal'mologov Rossii, 9-i: Tez. dokl. – M., 2010. – S. 214.
4. Shilova T.Yu., Anisimova S.Yu., Anisimov S.I. Korrektsiya astigmatizma toricheskimi linzami Acrysof Toric® posle fakoemul'sifikatsii katarakty // Fedorovskie chteniya – 2009: Vserossiiskaya nauch.-prakt. konf. s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem, 8-ya: Tez. dokl. – M., 2009. – S. 303.
5. Ahmed Iqbal K. Pentacam: what every cataract surgeon needs to know // Sataract Refract. Surg. Today. – 2007. – Jan. – P. 25-26.
6. Ale J.B., Power J., Zohs K., Cunningham F. Refractive and visual outcome of toric intraocular lens implantation following cataract surgery // Nepal J. Ophthalmoljgy. – 2012. – Vol. 4, № 7. – P. 37-44.
7. Belin Michael W. Reading the Pentacam’s Maps // Sataract Refract. Surg. Today. – 2007. – Jan. – P. 16-18.
8. Cucera A., Lang G.K., Buchwald H.J. Intraand interindividual comparison of corneal refraction measured by IOL-Master vs. corneal topography // Klin. Monbl. Augenheilkd. – 2008. – Vol. 225, № 11. – P. 957-962.
9. Engren A.L., Behndig A. Anterior chamber depth, intraocular lens position, and refractive outcomes after cataract surgery // J. Cataract Refract. Surg. – 2013. – Vol. 39, № 4. – P. 572-577.
10. Ernest P., Potvin R. Effects of preoperative corneal astigmatism orientation on results with a low-cylinder-power toric intraocular lens // J. Cataract Refract. Surg. – 2011. – Vol. 37, № 4. – P. 727-732.
11. Gonen T., Cosar C.B., Sener B., Keskinbora K.H. Comparison of keratometric data obtained by automated keratometer, Dicon CT 200, Allegro Topolyzer and Pentacam // J. Refract. Surg. – 2012. – Vol. 28, № 8. – P. 557-561.
12. Jong T., Sheehan M.T., Dubbelman M. et al. Shape of the anterior cornea: comparison of height data from 4 corneal topographers // J. Cataract Refract. Surg. – 2013. – Vol. 39, № 10. – P. 1570-1580.
13. Kim S.M., Choi J., Choi S. Refractive Predictability of Partial Coherence Interferometry and Factors that can Affect It // Korean J. Ophthalmol. – 2009. – Vol. 23, № 1. – P. 6-12.
14. Kohnen T. Astigmatism measurements for cataract and refractive surgery // J. Refract. Surg. – 2012. – Vol. 38, № 12. – P. 2065.
15. Lee H., Chung J.L., Kim E.K. et al. Univariate and bivariate polar value analysis of corneal astigmatism measurements obtained with 6 instruments // J. Cataract Refract. Surg. – 2012. – Vol. 38. – P. 16081615.
16. Mendicute J., Irigoyen C., Ruiz M. et al. Toric intraocular lens versus opposite clear corneal incisions to correct astigmatism in eyes having cataract surgery // J. Cataract Refract. Surg. – 2009. – Vol. 35, № 3. – P. 451-458.
17. Michelson Marc A. Corneal elevation, slope, and curvature // Sataract Refract. Surg. Today. – 2007, Jan. – P. 21-23.
18. Mingo-Botín D., Muñoz-Negrete F. J., Won Kim H. R. et al. Comparison of toric intraocular lenses and peripheral corneal relaxing incisions to treat astigmatism during cataract surgery // J. Cataract Refract. Surg. – 2010. – Vol. 36, № 10. – P. 1700-1708.
19. Perez M. Analyzing and tracking preoperative and intraoperative astigmatism // J. Fr. Ophtalmol. – 2012. – Vol. 35, № 3. – P. 196-201.
20. Potvin R., Gundersen K.G., Masket S. et al. Prospective multicenter study of toric IOL outcomes when dual zone automated keratometry is used for astigmatism planning // J. Refract. Surg. – 2013. – Vol. 29, № 12. – P. 804-809.
21. Saad E., Shammas M.C., Shammas H.J. Scheimpflug corneal power measurements for intraocular lens power calculation in cataract surgery // Am. J. Ophthalmol. – 2013. – Vol. 156, № 3. – P. 460-467.
22. Srivannaboon S., Chirapapaisan C., Chonpimai P. Comparison of corneal astigmatism and axis location in cataract patients measured by total corneal power, automated keratometry, and simulated keratometry // J. Cataract Refract. Surg. – 2012. – Vol. 38, № 12. – P. 2088-2093.
23. Sun X.Y., Vicary D., Montgomery P., Griffiths M. Toric intraocular lenses for correcting astigmatism in 130 eyes // Ophthalmology. – 2000. – Vol. 107, № 9. – P. 1776-1781.
24. Symes R.J., Say M.J., Ursell P.G. Scheimpflug keratometry versus conventional automated keratometry in routine cataract surgery // J. Cataract Refract. Surg. – 2010. – Vol. 36, № 7. – P. 1107-1114.
25. Woodhams Trevor J. Pentacam for the refractive IOL surgeon // Sataract Refract. Surg. Today. – 2007. – Jan. – P. 23-25.
26. Yong Park C., Do J.R., Chuck R.S. Predicting postoperative astigmatism using Scheimpflug keratometry (Pentacam) and automated keratometry (IOLMaster) // Curr. Eye Res. – 2012. – Vol. 37, № 12. – P. 1091-1098.
