Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
PURPOSE: To compare ocular biometry parameters measured with immersion ultrasound, partial coherence interferometry, and low coherence reflectometry in cataract patients. METHODS: Measurements of axial length and anterior chamber depth were analyzed and compared using immersion ultrasound, partial coherence interferometry, and low coherence reflectometry. Keratometry (K), flattest axis, and white-to-white measurements were compared between partial coherence interferometry and low coherence reflectometry. Seventy-eight cataract (LOCS II range: 1 to 3) eyes of 45 patients aged between 42 and 90 years were evaluated. A subanalysis as a function of cataract degree was done for axial length and anterior chamber depth between techniques. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were noted for the study cohort or within each cataract degree among the three techniques for axial length and anterior chamber depth (P>.05, ANOVA test). Measurements between techniques were highly correlated for axial length (R=0.99) and anterior chamber depth (R=0.90 to 0.96) for all methods. Keratometry, flattest axis, and white-to-white measurements were comparable (paired t test, P>.1) and correlated well between partial coherence interferometry and low coherence reflectometry (K1 [R=0.95), K2 [R=0.97], flattest axis [R=0.95], and white-to-white [R=0.92]). CONCLUSIONS: Immersion ultrasound, partial coherence interferometry, and low coherence reflectometry provided comparable ocular biometry measurements in cataractous eyes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Montés‐Micó et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: