Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

[Comparison of contact and immersion techniques of ultrasound biometry].

Authors: J, Hrebcová; A, Vasků;

[Comparison of contact and immersion techniques of ultrasound biometry].

Abstract

Biometry, i. e. the measurement of the eye axial length, is performed in patients before cataract surgery. Together with keratometry, it serves for the calculation of the intraocular lens refractive (dioptric) power. The purpose of our study was to determine whether contact and immersion A-scan ultrasound techniques produce comparable measurements of the eye axial length. The axial length of 120 non-paired eyes was measured, using both contact and immersion techniques. The measurements were performed by means of an Alcon Ocuscan machine. The mean eye axial length using the contact technique was 23.28 mm (min. 19.31 mm, max. 31.25 mm), compared to the mean of 23.38 mm (min. 19.38 mm, max. 31.36 mm) gained by the immersion technique. The standard deviation of the measurements using both techniques was less than 0.1 mm. A statistically significant difference was proved between the contact and the immersion techniques (p < 0.01). There is significant correlation between both methods (p < 0.01). The eye axial length gained by means of the immersion technique was on average 0.1 mm longer than that obtained by the contact technique. Biometry is of great importance for achieving accurate postoperative target refraction in cataract surgery that is a part of refractive surgery today. It will be necessary to carry out another retrospective study with a special focus on the target postoperative refraction in order to verify the accuracy of both the biometric techniques.

Keywords

Lenses, Intraocular, Anthropometry, Humans, Cataract Extraction, Eye, Ultrasonography

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!