SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Glokom Katarakt / 2012 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 4

Galilei dual-scheimpflug analyzer ve konvansiyonel a-tarayıcı ultrason ile elde edilen ön kamara derinlik ölçümlerinin karşılaştırılması

Comparison of anterior chamber depth measurements by the galilei dual-scheimpflug analyzer and conventional a-scan ultrasound

VOLKAN YETER
Nurşen ARITÜRK
Pages
209–214
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

GSA measures the ACD on average 0.11 mm longer than conventional ultrasound and this difference may be regarded as clinically insignificant.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: To compare the anterior chamber depth measurements (ACD) obtained by the Galilei Dual-Scheimpflug Analyzer (GSA) and conventional A-scan ultrasound in healthy subjects.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: In this prospective study, ACD measurements of 80 eyes of 43 healthy subjects (30 adults and 13 children; 21 females and 22 males; mean age: 27.86±15.32 years) were respectively measured by GSA (Ziemer Group, Switzerland) and ultrasound.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:GSA measures the ACD on average 0.11 mm longer than conventional ultrasound and this difference may be regarded as clinically insignificant.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the anterior chamber depth measurements (ACD) obtained by the Galilei Dual-Scheimpflug Analyzer (GSA) and conventional A-scan ultrasound in healthy subjects. Materials and Methods: In this prospective study, ACD measurements of 80 eyes of 43 healthy subjects (30 adults and 13 children; 21 females and 22 males; mean age: 27.86±15.32 years) were respectively measured by GSA (Ziemer Group, Switzerland) and ultrasound. The data was analyzed statistically by the Paired-T test, Bland-Altman plot, and Pearson correlation test to assess the agreement of the measurements. Results: The mean ACD values obtained by GSA and ultrasound were 3.58±0.29 mm and 3.47±0.33 mm, respectively. The mean difference between the ACD measurements obtained by ultrasound and GSA (GSA minus Ultrasound) was 0.11±0.14 mm and the difference between the ACD measurements of these devices was statistically significant (p<0.001). There was high correlation between the ACD measurements of GSA and those of ultrasound (r=0.90; p<0.001). Conclusions: The ACD measurements of GSA and conventional A-scan ultrasound are highly correlated. GSA measures the ACD on average 0.11 mm longer than conventional ultrasound and this difference may be regarded as clinically insignificant.

Özet

Amaç: Galilei Dual-Scheimpflug Analyzer (GSA) ve konvansiyonel A-Tarayıcı ultrason ile sağlıklı bireylerde elde edilen ön kamara derinlik ölçümlerinin karşılaştırılması. Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu prospektif çalışmada, 43 sağlıklı bireyin 80 gözü (30’u yetişkin ve 13’ü çocuk; 21’i kız ve 22’si erkek; ortalama yaş: 27.86±15.32 yıl ) sırasıyla GSA (Ziemer Group, İsviçre) ve ultrason ile ön kamara derinliği için ölçüldü. Ölçümler arasındaki uyumluluk için; veriler Paired-T test, Bland-Altman plot, and Pearson korelasyon testi ile incelendi. Bulgular: GSA ve ultrason ile elde edilen ön kamara derinliği sırasıyla 3.58±0.29 mm and 3.47±0.33 mm idi. Ultrason ve GSA ile elde edilen ön kamara derinlik ölçümleri arasındaki fark (Ultrason eksi GSA) 0.11±0.14 mm iken; bu fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlıydı (p<0.001). GSA ve ultrason ile elde edilen ön kamara derinlik ölçümleri arasında yüksek korelasyon mevcuttu(r=0.90; p<0.001). Sonuç: GSA ve ultrason ile elde edilen ön kamara derinlik ölçümleri birbirleriyle yüksek düzeyde koreledir. GSA ön kamara derinliğini, konvansiyonel ultrasondan ortalama 0.11 mm daha uzun ölçmektedir ve bu fark klinik olarak anlamsız sayılabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

YETER, V., ARITÜRK, N. (2012). Galilei dual-scheimpflug analyzer ve konvansiyonel a-tarayıcı ultrason ile elde edilen ön kamara derinlik ölçümlerinin karşılaştırılması. Glokom Katarakt, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 4, 209–214. https://ajindex.com/articles/218363

References (14)

  1. Olsen T. Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg 1992;18:125-9
  2. Olsen T. Prediction of the effective postoperative (intraocular lens) anterior chamber depth. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006;32:419-24
  3. Norrby S. Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008;34:368-76
  4. Alio JL, de la Hoz F, Perez-Santonja JJ, et al. Phakic anterior chamber lenses for the correction of myopia: a 7-year cumulative analysis of complications in 263 cases. Ophthalmology 1999;106:458-66
  5. Devereux JG, Foster PJ, Baasanhu J, et al. Anterior chamber depth measurement as a screening tool for primary angle-closure glaucoma in an East Asian population. Arch Ophthalmol 2000;118:257-63
  6. Kriechbaum K, Findl O, Kiss B, et al. Comparison of anterior chamber depth measurement methods in phakic and pseudophakic eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003;29:89-94
  7. Lavanya R, Teo L, Friedman DS, et al. Comparison of anterior chamber depth measurements using the IOLMaster, scanning peripheral anterior chamber depth analyser, and anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Br J Ophthalmol 2007;91:1023-6
  8. Nemeth G, Hassan Z, Modis L, et al. Comparison of anterior chamber depth measurements conducted with Pentacam HR(R) and IOLMaster(R). Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging 2011;42:144-7
  9. Lee JY, Kim JH, Kim HM, et al. Comparison of anterior chamber depth measurement between Orbscan IIz and ultrasound biomicroscopy. J Refract Surg 2007;23:487-91
  10. Salouti R, Nowroozzadeh MH, Zamani M, et al. Comparison of anterior chamber depth measurements using Galilei, HR Pentacam, and Orbscan II. Optometry 2010;81:35-9
  11. Doors M, Cruysberg LP, Berendschot TT, et al. Comparison of central corneal thickness and anterior chamber depth measurements using three imaging technologies in normal eyes and after phakic intraocular lens implantation. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2009;247:1139-46
  12. Szalai E, Berta A, Nemeth G, et al. Anterior chamber depth measurements obtained with Pentacam HR (R) imaging system and conventional A-scan ultrasound. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging 2011;42:248-53
  13. Elbaz U, Barkana Y, Gerber Y, et al. Comparison of different techniques of anterior chamber depth and keratometric measurements. Am J Ophthalmol 2007;143:48-53
  14. Reuland MS, Reuland AJ, Nishi Y, et al. Corneal radii and anterior chamber depth measurements using the IOLmaster versus the Pentacam. J Refract Surg 2007;23:368-73