PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11821203

Immersion A-scan compared with partial coherence interferometry: outcomes analysis.

Mark Packer·I Howard Fine·Richard S Hoffman·Peggy G Coffman·Laurie K Brown
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare 2 methods of axial length measurement, immersion ultrasonography and partial coherence interferometry, and to elucidate surgical outcomes based on immersion measurements. SETTING: Oregon Eye Institute, Eugene, Oregon, USA. METHODS: Axial length measurements in 50 cataractous eyes were obtained by optical biometry (IOLMaster, Zeiss Humphrey Systems) and immersion ultrasound (Axis II, Quantel Medical), and the results were compared. Intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations in the same eyes after cataract extraction and posterior chamber IOL implantation were evaluated retrospectively based on the postoperative spherical equivalent prediction error. RESULTS: Immersion ultrasonography and partial coherence interferometry measurements correlated in a highly positive manner (correlation coefficient = 0.996). Outcomes analysis demonstrated 92.0% of eyes were within +/-0.5 diopter of emmetropia based on immersion axial length measurements. CONCLUSION: Immersion ultrasonography provided highly accurate axial length measurements and permitted highly accurate IOL power calculations.

Explore related subjects

BiometryDiagnostic Techniques, OphthalmologicalEyeHumansInterferometryLens Implantation, IntraocularLenses, IntraocularLightOutcome Assessment, Health CarePhacoemulsificationRefraction, OcularRefractive ErrorsReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesUltrasonographyComparative StudyJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Mark Packer, I Howard Fine, Richard S Hoffman, Peggy G Coffman, Laurie K Brown. 2002. Immersion A-scan compared with partial coherence interferometry: outcomes analysis.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0886-3350(01)01259-7

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2003

[Common biostatistical errors in clinical studies].

Roughly half to two third of all published biomedical studies that use statistical methods contain unacceptable errors. The present article points at common errors that may be avoided without requiring profound statistical knowledge. These errors mainly concern the minimal number of patients and sample size (statistical power), agreement between aim and conclusion, distribution of data as well as description of location and variability of data. An analysis of 150 papers in the New England Journal of Medicine and in Circulation demonstrates that these errors can also commonly be found in respected journals after statistical peer review. Editors of biomedical journals could reduce the problem by means of statistical guidelines.

Biometry↗
PubMed2003

How to decide whether small samples comply with an equidistribution.

The decision whether a measured distribution complies with an equidistribution is a central element of many biostatistical methods. High throughput differential expression measurements, for instance, necessitate to judge possible over-representation of genes. The reliability of this judgement, however, is strongly affected when rarely expressed genes are pooled. We propose a method that can be applied to frequency ranked distributions and that yields a simple but efficient criterion to assess the hypothesis of equiprobable expression levels. By applying our technique to surrogate data we exemplify how the decision criterion can differentiate between a true equidistribution and a triangular distribution. The distinction succeeds even for small sample sizes where standard tests of significance (e.g. chi(2)) fail. Our method will have a major impact on several problems of computational biology where rare events baffle a reliable assessment of frequency distributions. The program package is available upon request from the authors.

Biometry↗
PubMed2003

Comparison of biometric measurements using partial coherence interferometry and applanation ultrasound.

PURPOSE: To compare and contrast axial length (AL) measurements assessed by ultrasound biometry and optical biometry. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany. METHODS: Optical biometry and ultrasound biometry were performed in 360 eyes to measure AL. RESULTS: In eyes with a clear-appearing crystalline lens, there was a statistically significant median difference in AL measurements between the 2 methods in eyes with a normal or long length. In eyes with cataract, there was a statistically significant median difference in AL measurements in eyes with a normal or short length. In these cases, optical biometry produced larger readings than ultrasound biometry. In eyes with a posterior chamber intraocular lens, there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 methods in eyes of all lengths. In all eyes, the 2 methods produced reliable measurements. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that optical biometry and ultrasound applanation biometry give statistically significant differences in AL measurement in patients with cataract and normal lenses. In these cases, optical biometry provided clinically relevant larger values than ultrasound applanation. Optical biometry provides an alternative to ultrasound biometry. However, ultrasound biometry may be indicated in certain complex cases.

Biometry↗