Laser vs ultrasound biometry -: a study of intra- and interobserver variability

被引:24
|
作者
Goel, S
Chua, C
Butcher, M
Jones, CA
Bagga, P
Kotta, S
机构
[1] Dewsbury Dist Hosp, Dept Ophthalmol, Dewsbury WF13 4HS, England
[2] Dept Ophthalmol, Oxford, England
[3] Dept Ophthalmol, Grimsby, England
[4] Diana Princess Wales Hosp, Grimsby, England
关键词
IOL Master; cataract biometry;
D O I
10.1038/sj.eye.6700705
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Background Accurate biometry is of vital importance in achieving predictable postoperative refraction following cataract surgery. Aim To evaluate the accuracy and consistency in biometry, achieved by the new generation laser biometric system in comparison with the ultrasound biometric system. Methods The study was randomized and prospective. Biometry was performed in 68 eyes of 39 patients by three groups of biometrists ( expert, intermediate user, novice). Expert and intermediate users are compared as group A, and expert and novice are compared in group B. Axial length, anterior chamber depth (ACD), and keratometry results are compared by t-test analysis. Results Axial length measurement variation between expert and non experts was 10 times less using laser than ultrasound (P<0.001). ACD measurement variation was also significantly less when using laser compared to ultraound ( P = 0.003). Need for some level of user training is indicated in ACD measurement since group A achieved more consistent readings than group B. Keratometry measurements on the laser system were unreliable due to high range of results. Biometric failure was seen in 12% of eyes undergoing laser and 1% undergoing ultrasound biometry. Conclusion Axial length determination by laser biometry is more accurate and consistent at all levels of biometrist expertise, compared to ultrasound biometry. ACD and keratometry measurements on the laser systems need some degree of user training in order to produce consistent results.
引用
收藏
页码:514 / 518
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Laser vs ultrasound biometry—a study of intra- and interobserver variability
    S Goel
    C Chua
    M Butcher
    C A Jones
    P Bagga
    S Kotta
    [J]. Eye, 2004, 18 : 514 - 518
  • [2] Intra- and interobserver variability in fetal ultrasound measurements
    Sarris, I.
    Ioannou, C.
    Chamberlain, P.
    Ohuma, E.
    Roseman, F.
    Hoch, L.
    Altman, D. G.
    Papageorghiou, A. T.
    [J]. ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2012, 39 (03) : 266 - 273
  • [3] Intravascular ultrasound and stent implantation: Intra- and interobserver variability
    Blessing, E
    Hausmann, D
    Sturm, M
    Mugge, A
    Amende, I
    [J]. HEART, 1996, 75 (05) : 224 - 224
  • [4] Intravascular ultrasound guidance of stent implantation: Intra- and interobserver variability
    Blessing, E
    Hausmann, D
    Sturm, M
    Wolpers, HG
    Amende, I
    Mugge, A
    [J]. CIRCULATION, 1996, 94 (08) : 1160 - 1160
  • [5] Intra- and Interobserver Variability in Ultrasound Measurement of Testicular Volumes in Pubertal Boys
    Schaefer, Frank-Mattias
    Buergener, Daniel
    Stehr, Maximilian
    Rompel, Oliver
    [J]. CHILDREN-BASEL, 2024, 11 (06):
  • [6] Intra- and interobserver variability of 4D ultrasound examination of the infrarenal aorta
    Derwich, Wojciech
    Wiedemann, Antonia
    Wittek, Andreas
    Filmann, Natalie
    Blase, Christopher
    Schmitz-Rixen, Thomas
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE, 2021, 40 (11) : 2391 - 2402
  • [7] Intra- and Interobserver Variability in the Assessment of Ampullary Dysplasia
    Allard, Felicia
    Goldsmith, Jeffrey
    Ayata, Gamze
    Brown, Larry
    Challies, Tracy
    Najarian, Robert
    Nasser, Imad
    Wang, Helen
    Yee, Eric
    [J]. LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, 2016, 96 : 439A - 439A
  • [8] Intra- and Interobserver Variability in the Assessment of Ampullary Dysplasia
    Allard, Felicia
    Goldsmith, Jeffrey
    Ayala, Gamze
    Brown, Larry
    Challies, Tracy
    Najarian, Robert
    Nasser, Imad
    Wang, Helen
    Yee, Eric
    [J]. MODERN PATHOLOGY, 2016, 29 : 439A - 439A
  • [9] Intra- and Interobserver Variability in CT Measurements in Oncology
    McErlean, Aoife
    Panicek, David M.
    Zabor, Emily C.
    Moskowitz, Chaya S.
    Bitar, Richard
    Motzer, Robert J.
    Hricak, Hedvig
    Ginsberg, Michelle S.
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2013, 269 (02) : 450 - 458
  • [10] Intra- and interobserver variability of MRI prostate volume measurements
    Bonilla, J
    Stoner, E
    Grino, P
    Binkowitz, B
    Taylor, A
    [J]. PROSTATE, 1997, 31 (02): : 98 - 102