Comparison of Anterior Chamber Depth Obtained from Applanation and Optical Principle Devices.
10.3341/jkos.2013.54.8.1219
- Author:
Yuli PARK
1
;
Hyung Bin HWANG
;
Sung Kun CHUNG
Author Information
1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Yeouido St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. eyedoc@catholic.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Anterior chamber depth;
A-scan;
IOL Master(R);
Orbscan II(R);
Pentacam(R)
- MeSH:
Anterior Chamber;
Cataract;
Chicago;
Eye;
Humans
- From:Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society
2013;54(8):1219-1226
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To assess the reproducibility and reliability of applanation A-scan ultrasonography (Pacscan 300A, Sonomed Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and optical measurements with IOL Master(R) (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Germany), Pentacam(R) (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany), and Orbscan II(R) (Orbtek Inc., Laredo, TX, USA) when measuring anterior chamber depth (ACD). METHODS: In this study of 188 eyes of 94 patients, ACD estimation prior to cataract surgery was preformed by the applanation A-scan method and IOL Master(R), Pentacam(R), and Orbscan II(R) optical methods. Repeatability from each device was evaluated by coefficient of variation, standard deviation, and intraclass correlation coefficient. RM-ANOVA on Ranks was used to compare the differences in ACD among the devices. The Bland-Altman plot was performed to assess agreement in measurements between the devices. RESULTS: The mean ACD according to the applanation A-scan method and IOL Master(R), Pentacam(R), and Orbscan II(R) optical methods were 2.89 +/- 0.49 mm, 3.25 +/- 0.45 mm, 3.21 +/- 0.46 mm, and 3.19 +/- 0.47 mm, respectively, and the differences were statistically significant (p < 0.01). The coefficient of variation for the 4 methods was 2.50% in the A-scan, 0.87% in the IOL Master(R), 1.25% in the Pentacam(R), and 1.04% with Orbscan II(R), and reproducibility was higher with the optical principle devices. The correlation coefficient between A-scan and IOL Master(R) was 0.65, between IOL Master(R) and Pentacam(R) 0.91, between IOL Master(R) and Orbscan II(R) 0.90, between A-scan and Pentacam(R) 0.69, between A-scan and Orbscan II(R) 0.71, and between Pentacam(R) and Orbscan II(R) 0.93. CONCLUSIONS: Applanation A-scan provided lower measurements for ACD compared with IOL Master(R), Pentacam(R) and Orbscan II(R). There was good agreement between results obtained with the latter 3 methods, and reproducibility was high with optical measurements. The coefficient of variation was low for IOL Master(R).
