M Pop1, Y Payette, M Mansour. 1. Michel Pop Clinics, 9001 l'Acadie Boulevard North, Suite 900, Montreal, Quebec H4N 3H5, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To predict sulcus size using ocular measurements. SETTING: Michel Pop Clinics, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. METHODS: Forty-three eyes were evaluated using several techniques. Ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) echograms were taken to measure the anterior chamber depth (ACD), sulcus size, and central corneal thickness. The limbus size was measured with a caliper. Axial length, ACD, and pachymetry were measured by contact ultrasonography. Refraction and corneal power were also evaluated. RESULTS: The coefficient of linear regression was 0.05 between the limbus and the sulcus size (P =.78), 0.76 between ultrasonography and UBM ACD measurements (P <.001), and 0.69 between ultrasonography and UBM pachymetry (P <.001). Paired t tests showed that ultrasound and UBM ACD measurements were not statistically different (P =.70) but that ultrasound and UBM pachymetry measurements were (P <.001). The sulcus versus limbus difference was 0.6 mm for myopia and 0.3 mm for hyperopia. A backward elimination multiple regression performed with all measures to predict sulcus size resulted in the following formula: Sulcus size = 18.9 - 0.023 x sphere + 0.15 x mean keratometry (R = 0.49; P =.005; statistical power = 0.89; standard error of estimate = 0.5 mm). CONCLUSION: Traditional estimation of sulcus size through limbal measurement is inadequate because limbus size alone cannot predict sulcus size. A general formula using the sphere and the mean corneal power can help predict sulcus size. Corneal power was significantly and negatively correlated with sulcus and limbus size as well as sphere. The standard error of sulcus measurement by UBM was 0.4 mm.
PURPOSE: To predict sulcus size using ocular measurements. SETTING: Michel Pop Clinics, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. METHODS: Forty-three eyes were evaluated using several techniques. Ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) echograms were taken to measure the anterior chamber depth (ACD), sulcus size, and central corneal thickness. The limbus size was measured with a caliper. Axial length, ACD, and pachymetry were measured by contact ultrasonography. Refraction and corneal power were also evaluated. RESULTS: The coefficient of linear regression was 0.05 between the limbus and the sulcus size (P =.78), 0.76 between ultrasonography and UBM ACD measurements (P <.001), and 0.69 between ultrasonography and UBM pachymetry (P <.001). Paired t tests showed that ultrasound and UBM ACD measurements were not statistically different (P =.70) but that ultrasound and UBM pachymetry measurements were (P <.001). The sulcus versus limbus difference was 0.6 mm for myopia and 0.3 mm for hyperopia. A backward elimination multiple regression performed with all measures to predict sulcus size resulted in the following formula: Sulcus size = 18.9 - 0.023 x sphere + 0.15 x mean keratometry (R = 0.49; P =.005; statistical power = 0.89; standard error of estimate = 0.5 mm). CONCLUSION: Traditional estimation of sulcus size through limbal measurement is inadequate because limbus size alone cannot predict sulcus size. A general formula using the sphere and the mean corneal power can help predict sulcus size. Corneal power was significantly and negatively correlated with sulcus and limbus size as well as sphere. The standard error of sulcus measurement by UBM was 0.4 mm.
Authors: Robert Montés-Micó; Pedro Tañá-Rivero; Salvador Aguilar-Córcoles; María Ruiz-Santos; María Dolores Rodríguez-Carrillo; Ramón Ruiz-Mesa Journal: Eye Vis (Lond) Date: 2020-08-16
Authors: Dan Z Reinstein; Timothy J Archer; Ronald H Silverman; Mark J Rondeau; D Jackson Coleman Journal: J Refract Surg Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Nasser A AlSabaani; Ashley Behrens; Sabah Jastanieah; Salem Al Malki; Mohanna Al Jindan; Saeed Al Motowa Journal: Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol Date: 2016 Oct-Dec