TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparative estimation of anterior chamber depth by ultrasonography, Orbscan II, and IOLMaster
AU - Reddy, Aravind R.
AU - Pande, Milind V.
AU - Finn, Paul
AU - El-Gogary, Hazem
PY - 2004/6/1
Y1 - 2004/6/1
N2 - Purpose: To assess the degree of agreement of anterior chamber depth (ACD) measurements by 2 optical devices (Orbscan II and IOLMaster) and compare them with contact ultrasound A-scan. Setting: Department of Ophthalmology at Hull Royal Infirmary, England. Methods: In this prospective study of 81 eyes of 41 consecutive patients, ACD estimation was done by 3 methods - scanning slit topography (Orbscan II), partial coherence interferometry (IOLMaster), and contact ultrasound A-scan in that order. The same observer performed all measurements. Repeated measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze difference between ACD measurements by the 3 methods. Difference in measurements between methods was assessed using the paired t test. Results: The mean ACD (±SD) by the 3 methods was 3.32 mm (0.60), 3.33 mm (0.61), and 2.87 mm (0.55), respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between measurements recorded by the 3 methods (P<.01). Mean contact A-scan measurements were 0.40 mm and 0.43 mm lower than by Orbscan II and IOLMaster respectively (P<.01). Conclusion: Applanation ultrasound gives consistently lower measurements for ACD compared to Orbscan II and IOLMaster. Although a high degree of agreement between Orbscan II and IOLMaster was noted, further studies are needed to assess the interchangeability of measurements in clinical practice.
AB - Purpose: To assess the degree of agreement of anterior chamber depth (ACD) measurements by 2 optical devices (Orbscan II and IOLMaster) and compare them with contact ultrasound A-scan. Setting: Department of Ophthalmology at Hull Royal Infirmary, England. Methods: In this prospective study of 81 eyes of 41 consecutive patients, ACD estimation was done by 3 methods - scanning slit topography (Orbscan II), partial coherence interferometry (IOLMaster), and contact ultrasound A-scan in that order. The same observer performed all measurements. Repeated measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze difference between ACD measurements by the 3 methods. Difference in measurements between methods was assessed using the paired t test. Results: The mean ACD (±SD) by the 3 methods was 3.32 mm (0.60), 3.33 mm (0.61), and 2.87 mm (0.55), respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between measurements recorded by the 3 methods (P<.01). Mean contact A-scan measurements were 0.40 mm and 0.43 mm lower than by Orbscan II and IOLMaster respectively (P<.01). Conclusion: Applanation ultrasound gives consistently lower measurements for ACD compared to Orbscan II and IOLMaster. Although a high degree of agreement between Orbscan II and IOLMaster was noted, further studies are needed to assess the interchangeability of measurements in clinical practice.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=2942538426&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jcrs.2003.11.053
DO - 10.1016/j.jcrs.2003.11.053
M3 - Article
C2 - 15177602
AN - SCOPUS:2942538426
SN - 0886-3350
VL - 30
SP - 1268
EP - 1271
JO - Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery
JF - Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery
IS - 6
ER -