Comparación de tres biómetros ópticos en pacientes con catarata en una institución de alta complejidad

Corrales Martínez, Maria Isabel

dc.contributor.advisor	Tello Hernández, Alejandro	spa
dc.contributor.advisor	Ochoa Vera, Miguel Enrique	spa
dc.contributor.author	Corrales Martínez, Maria Isabel	spa
dc.coverage.spatial	Santander, Colombia	spa
dc.date.accessioned	2020-09-19T14:10:34Z
dc.date.available	2020-09-19T14:10:34Z
dc.date.issued	2019
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12749/7220
dc.description.abstract	Objetivo: Evaluar los resultados de la biometría óptica utilizando IOLMaster 500, Lenstar LS 900 y Aladdin en ojos con catarata. Métodos: En 231 ojos de 152 pacientes con cataratas, se compararon retrospectivamente las medidas de 3 biómetros diferentes. Se realizaron comparaciones pareadas para la longitud axial (AL), la queratometría media (K media) y la profundidad de la cámara anterior (ACD). Resultados: En solo 197 de los 231 ojos (85,3%), fue posible obtener mediciones confiables de AL con los tres dispositivos. No fue posible determinar AL en 16 ojos (6,9%) con Lenstar LS 900; en 19 ojos (8,2%) con Aladdin; y en 20 ojos (8,6%) con IOLMaster 500 posiblemente relacionado con la severidad de la opacificación del cristalino (las córneas tenían buena transparencia en los ojos incluidos en el estudio). Hubo una diferencia estadísticamente significativa en AL entre IOLMaster 500 y los dos biómetros restantes (P = 0.03). Sin embargo, la cantidad de diferencia se consideró clínicamente no significativa (0,04 mm). La queratometría media (K media) se determinó en 203 ojos (87,9%) con los tres dispositivos. Las diferencias en la media de K estuvieron entre - 0,1 y 0,06 dioptrías (D), que no se consideraron ni estadísticamente (P> 0,05) ni clínicamente significativas. La profundidad de la cámara anterior (DCA) se determinó en 197 ojos (85,28%) con los tres biómetros. Las diferencias entre los tres dispositivos (0,03 a 0,13 mm) no fueron estadísticamente significativas y tampoco se consideraron clínicamente significativas. Conclusiones: No hubo diferencias clínicamente significativas entre estos 3 biómetros en AL, K medio y ACD.	spa
dc.format.mimetype	application/pdf	spa
dc.language.iso	spa	spa
dc.rights.uri	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/co/	*
dc.subject.mesh	Catarata	spa
dc.subject.mesh	Procedimientos quirúrgicos refractivos	spa
dc.title	Comparación de tres biómetros ópticos en pacientes con catarata en una institución de alta complejidad	spa
dc.title.translated	Comparison of three optical biometers in patients with cataract in a highly complex institution	eng
dc.degree.name	Especialista en Oftalmología	spa
dc.publisher.grantor	Universidad Autónoma de Bucaramanga UNAB	spa
dc.rights.local	Abierto (Texto Completo)	spa
dc.publisher.faculty	Facultad Ciencias de la Salud	spa
dc.publisher.program	Especialización en Oftalmología	spa
dc.description.degreelevel	Especialización	spa
dc.type.driver	info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis
dc.type.local	Tesis	spa
dc.type.coar	http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_bdcc
dc.subject.keywords	Medical sciences	eng
dc.subject.keywords	Health sciences	eng
dc.subject.keywords	Ophthalmology	eng
dc.subject.keywords	Diagnostic techniques	eng
dc.subject.keywords	Ophthalmological anterior chamber axial length	eng
dc.subject.keywords	Methods	eng
dc.subject.keywords	Eye biometry	eng
dc.subject.keywords	Corneal topography	eng
dc.subject.keywords	Cataract	eng
dc.subject.keywords	Refractive surgical procedures	eng
dc.identifier.instname	instname:Universidad Autónoma de Bucaramanga - UNAB	spa
dc.identifier.reponame	reponame:Repositorio Institucional UNAB	spa
dc.type.hasversion	info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion
dc.rights.accessrights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess	spa
dc.rights.accessrights	http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2	spa
dc.relation.references	1.Haigis W, Lege B, Miller N, Schneider B (2000) Compar- ison of immersion ultrasound biometry and partial coher- ence interferometry for intraocular lens calculation according to Haigis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 238:765–773	spa
dc.relation.references	2. Kiss B, Findl O, Menapace R, Wirtitsch M, Drexler W, Hitzenberger CK et al (2002) Biometry of cataractous eyes using partial coherence interferometry: clinical feasibility study of a commercial prototype I. J Cataract Refract Surg 28:224–229	spa
dc.relation.references	3. Nazm N, Chakrabarti A (2017) Update on optical biometry and intraocular lens power calculation. TNOA J Ophthalmic Sci Res 55:196–210	spa
dc.relation.references	4. Holzer MP, Mamusa M, Auffarth GU (2009) Accuracy of a new partial coherence interferometry analyser for biometric measurements. Br J Ophthalmol 93:807–810	spa
dc.relation.references	5. Sahin A, Hamrah P (2012) Clinically relevant biometry. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 23:47–53	spa
dc.relation.references	6. Buckhurst PJ, Wolffsohn JS, Shah S, Naroo SA, Davies LN, Berrow EJ (2009) A new optical low coherence reflectom- etry device for ocular biometry in cataract patients. Br J Ophthalmol 93:949–953	spa
dc.relation.references	7. Epitropoulos A (2014) Axial length measurement acquisi- tion rates of two optical biometers in cataractous eyes. Clin Ophthalmol 8:1369–1376	spa
dc.relation.references	8. Mandal P, Berrow EJ, Naroo SA, Wolffsohn JS, Uthoff D, Holland D et al (2014) Validity and repeatability of the Aladdin ocular biometer. Br J Ophthalmol 98:256–258	spa
dc.relation.references	9. Salouti R, Nowroozzadeh MH, Zamani M, Ghoreyshi M, Salouti R (2011) Comparison of the ultrasonographic method with 2 partial coherence interferometry methods for intraocular lens power calculation. Optometry 82:140–147	spa
dc.relation.references	10. Shajari M, Lehmann UC, Kohnen T (2016) Comparison of corneal diameter and anterior chamber depth measurements using 4 different devices. Cornea 35:838–842	spa
dc.relation.references	11. Hill W, Angeles R, Otani T (2008) Evaluation of a new IOLMaster algorithm to measure axial length. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:920–924	spa
dc.relation.references	12. Freeman G, Pesudovs K (2005) The impact of cataract severity on measurement acquisition with the IOLMaster. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 83:439–442	spa
dc.relation.references	13. Rajan MS, Keilhorn I, Bell JA (2002) Partial coherence laser interferometry vs conventional ultrasound biometry in intraocular lens power calculations. Eye (Lond) 16:552–556 14. Nemeth J, Fekete O, Pesztenlehrer N (2003) Optical and ultrasound measurement of axial length and anterior chamber depth for intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg 29:85–88	spa
dc.relation.references	15. McAlinden C, Wang Q, Pesudovs K, Yang X, Bao F, Yu A et al (2015) Axial Length Measurement Failure Rates with the IOLMaster and Lenstar LS 900 in Eyes with Cataract. PLoS ONE 10:e0128929	spa
dc.relation.references	16. Mylonas G, Sacu S, Buehl W, Ritter M, Georgopoulos M, Schmidt-Erfurth U (2011) Performance of three biometry devices in patients with different grades of age-related cataract. Acta Ophthalmol 89:e237	spa
dc.relation.references	17. Stattin M, Zehetner C, Bechrakis NE, Speicher L (2015) Comparison of IOL-Master 500 vs. Lenstar LS900 con- cerning the calculation of target refraction: a retrospective analysis. Ophthalmologe 112:444–450	spa
dc.relation.references	18. Shammas HJ, Ortiz S, Shammas MC, Kim SH, Chong C (2016) Biometry measurements using a new large-coher- ence-length swept-source optical coherence tomographer. J Cataract Refract Surg 42:50–61	spa
dc.relation.references	19. Akman A, Asena L, Gu ̈ngo ̈r SG (2016) Evaluation and comparison of the new swept source OCT-based IOLMaster 700 with the IOLMaster 500. Br J Ophthalmol 100:1201–1205	spa
dc.relation.references	20. Goebels S, Pattmo ̈ller M, Eppig T, Cayless A, Seitz B, Langenbucher A (2015) Comparison of 3 biometry devices in cataract patients. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:2387–2393 Gao R, Chen H,	spa
dc.relation.references	21. Savini G, Miao Y, Wang X, Yang J et al (2017) Comparison of ocular biometric measurements between a new swept-source optical coherence tomography and a common optical low coherence reflectometry. Sci Rep 7:2484	spa
dc.relation.references	22. Hoffer KJ, Shammas HJ, Savini G (2010) Comparison of 2 laser instruments for measuring axial length. J Cataract Refract Surg 36:644–648	spa
dc.relation.references	23. Hua Y, Qiu W, Xiao Q, Wu Q (2018) Precision (repeata- bility and reproducibility) of ocular parameters obtained by the Tomey OA-2000 biometer compared to the IOLMaster in healthy eyes. PLoS ONE 13:e0193023	spa
dc.relation.references	24. Kunert KS, Peter M, Blum M, Haigis W, Sekundo W, Schu ̈tze J et al (2016) Repeatability and agreement in optical biometry of a new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometer versus partial coherence interferometry and optical low-coherence reflectometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 42:76–83	spa
dc.relation.references	25. Turczynowska M, Koz ́lik-Nowakowska K, Gaca-Wysocka M, Grzybowski A (2016) Effective ocular biometry and intraocular lens power calculation. European Ophthalmic Review 10:94–100 26.	spa
dc.relation.references	26. Hoffer KJ, Shammas HJ, Savini G, Huang J (2016) Multicenter study of optical low-coherence interferometry and partial-coherence interferometry optical biometers with patients from the United States and China. J Cataract Refract Surg 42:62–67	spa
dc.relation.references	27. McAlinden C, Wang Q, Gao R, Zhao W, Yu A, Li Y, Guo Y, Huang J (2017) Axial length measurement failure rates with biometers using swept-source optical coherence tomogra- phy compared to partial-coherence interferometry and optical low-coherence interferometry. Am J Ophthalmol 173:64–69	spa
dc.relation.references	28. Higashiyama T, Mori H, Nakajima F, Ohji M (2018) Comparison of a new biometer using swept-source optical coherence tomography and a conventional biometer using partial coherence interferometry. PLoS ONE 13:e0196401	spa
dc.relation.references	29. Savini G, Hoffer KJ, Shammas HJ, Aramberri J, Huang J, Barboni P (2017) Accuracy of a new swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer for IOL power calculation and comparison to IOLMaster. J Refract Surg 33:690–695	spa
dc.relation.references	30. Altman DG, Bland JM (1983) Measurement in medicine: the analysis of method comparison studies. Statistician 32:307–317	spa
dc.relation.references	31. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310	spa
dc.relation.references	32. Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8:135–160	spa
dc.relation.references	33. Giavarina D (2015) Understanding Bland Altman analysis. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 25:141–151	spa
dc.relation.references	Eye surgery	spa
dc.contributor.cvlac	Ochoa Vera, Miguel Enrique [0000898465]	*
dc.contributor.cvlac	Tello Hernández, Alejandro [0001009125]	*
dc.contributor.googlescholar	Tello Hernández, Alejandro [puxZHKYAAAAJ]	*
dc.contributor.orcid	Ochoa Vera, Miguel Enrique [0000-0002-4552-3388]	*
dc.contributor.orcid	Tello Hernández, Alejandro [0000-0001-5081-0720]	*
dc.contributor.scopus	Ochoa Vera, Miguel Enrique [36987156500]	*
dc.contributor.scopus	Tello Hernández, Alejandro [6603664598]	*
dc.contributor.researchgate	Ochoa Vera, Miguel Enrique [Miguel-Ochoa-6]	*
dc.contributor.researchgate	Tello Hernández, Alejandro [Alejandro-Tello]	*
dc.subject.lemb	Oftalmología	spa
dc.subject.lemb	Ciencias médicas	spa
dc.subject.lemb	Cirugía de los ojos	spa
dc.identifier.repourl	repourl:https://repository.unab.edu.co	spa
dc.description.abstractenglish	Purpose: To evaluate the results of optical biometry using the IOLMaster 500, Lenstar LS 900 and Aladdin in eyes with cataract. Methods: In 231 eyes of 152 patients with cataract,the measurements of 3 different biometers were retrospectively compared. Paired comparisons were performed for axial length (AL), mean keratometry (mean K) and anterior chamber depth (ACD). Results: In only 197 of the 231 eyes (85.3%), it was possible to obtain reliable measurements of AL with all the three devices. It was not possible to determine AL in 16 eyes (6.9%) with Lenstar LS 900; in 19 eyes (8.2%) with Aladdin; and in 20 eyes (8.6%) with IOLMaster 500 possibly related to the severity of lens opacification (the corneas had good transparency in the eyes included in the study). There was a statistically significant difference in AL between IOLMaster 500 and the remaining two biometers (P = 0.03). However, the amount of difference was considered clinically not significant (0.04 mm). The mean keratometry (mean K) was determined in 203 eyes (87.9%) with all the three devices. Differences in mean K were between - 0.1 and 0.06 Diopters (D), which were considered neither statistically (P > 0.05) nor clinically significant. The anterior chamber depth (ACD) was determined in 197 eyes (85.28%) with all the three biometers. The differences between the three devices (0.03 to 0.13 mm) were not statistically significant and considered also clinically not significant. Conclusions: There were no clinically significant differences between these 3 biometers in AL, mean K and ACD.	eng
dc.subject.proposal	Ciencias de la salud	spa
dc.subject.proposal	Longitud axial oftalmológica de la cámara anterior	spa
dc.subject.proposal	Biometría ocular	spa
dc.subject.proposal	Topografía corneal	spa
dc.type.redcol	http://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/TM
dc.rights.creativecommons	Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 2.5 Colombia	*
dc.coverage.campus	UNAB Campus Bucaramanga	spa
dc.description.learningmodality	Modalidad Presencial	spa