Literature DB >> 21244866

Evaluation of 2 new optical biometry devices and comparison with the current gold standard biometer.

Yen-An Chen1, Nino Hirnschall, Oliver Findl.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare 2 new optical biometry devices with the present gold standard biometer.
SETTING: Vienna Institute for Research in Ocular Surgery, Department of Ophthalmology, Hanusch Hospital, Vienna, Austria.
DESIGN: Evaluation of diagnostic test or technology.
METHODS: In patients scheduled for cataract surgery, measurements performed with the current gold standard optical biometer (IOLMaster) were compared with those of 2 new optical biometers, the Lenstar LS 900 (optical low-coherence reflectometry [OLCR] device; substudy 1) and the IOLMaster 500 (partial coherence interferometry [PCI] device; substudy 2). The duration of patient data entry and of the actual measurement process and the time from intraocular lens power calculation to printout were calculated.
RESULTS: The mean difference in axial length measurements was 0.01 mm ± 0.05 (SD) between the gold standard device and the new OLCR device and 0.01 ± 0.02 mm between the gold standard device and the new PCI device (P=.12 and P < .001, respectively). Measurements with the new OLCR device took significantly longer than with the gold standard device (mean difference 209 ± 127 seconds), and measurements with the gold standard device took significantly longer than with the new PCI device (mean difference 82 ± 46 seconds) (both P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: All 3 devices were easy to use for biometry before cataract surgery. Measurements with the new PCI device took half as long as those with the gold standard device. Measurements with the new OLCR device took twice as long as those with the gold standard device.
Copyright © 2011 ASCRS and ESCRS. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21244866     DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.10.041

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg        ISSN: 0886-3350            Impact factor:   3.351


  27 in total

1.  Comparison of keratometric measurements obtained by the Verion Image Guided System with optical biometry and auto-keratorefractometer.

Authors:  Leyla Asena; Sirel Gür Güngör; Ahmet Akman
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 2.031

2.  Comparison of ocular parameters of two biometric measurement devices in highly myopic eyes.

Authors:  Xiao-Xiao Guo; Ran You; Shan-Shan Li; Xiu-Fen Yang; Lu Zhao; Fan Zhang; Yan-Ling Wang; Xi Chen
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-10-18       Impact factor: 1.779

Review 3.  Clinically relevant biometry.

Authors:  Afsun Sahin; Pedram Hamrah
Journal:  Curr Opin Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 3.761

4.  Agreement and clinical comparison between a new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer and an optical low-coherence reflectometry biometer.

Authors:  P Arriola-Villalobos; J Almendral-Gómez; N Garzón; J Ruiz-Medrano; C Fernández-Pérez; J M Martínez-de-la-Casa; D Díaz-Valle
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2016-11-11       Impact factor: 3.775

5.  Repeatability of a new swept-source optical coherence tomographer and agreement with other three optical biometers.

Authors:  Shi-Ming Cheng; Jia-Sheng Zhang; Xu Shao; Ze-Tong Wu; Tian-Tian Li; Po Wang; Jun-Hai Lin; A-Yong Yu
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-02-16       Impact factor: 3.117

6.  Similarity of eyes in a cataractous population-How reliable is the biometry of the fellow eye for lens power calculation?

Authors:  Achim Langenbucher; Nóra Szentmáry; Alan Cayless; Veronika Röggla; Christina Leydolt; Jascha Wendelstein; Peter Hoffmann
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-06-30       Impact factor: 3.752

7.  In vivo measurement of the average refractive index of the human crystalline lens using optical coherence tomography.

Authors:  Carolina de Freitas; Marco Ruggeri; Fabrice Manns; Arthur Ho; Jean-Marie Parel
Journal:  Opt Lett       Date:  2013-01-15       Impact factor: 3.776

8.  Accuracy of Holladay 2 formula using IOLMaster parameters in the absence of lens thickness value.

Authors:  Sabong Srivannaboon; Chareenun Chirapapaisan; Niphon Chirapapaisan; Buntitar Lertsuwanroj; Mathinee Chongchareon
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-08-15       Impact factor: 3.117

9.  Axial Length Measurement Failure Rates with the IOLMaster and Lenstar LS 900 in Eyes with Cataract.

Authors:  Colm McAlinden; Qinmei Wang; Konrad Pesudovs; Xin Yang; Fangjun Bao; Ayong Yu; Shishi Lin; Yifan Feng; Jinhai Huang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-10       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Comparison of two novel swept-source optical coherence tomography devices to a partial coherence interferometry-based biometer.

Authors:  Tommy C Y Chan; Marco C Y Yu; Vivian Chiu; Gilda Lai; Christopher K S Leung; Poemen P M Chan
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-07-21       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.