scholarly journals Author Correction: Ocular biometry and refractive outcomes using two swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometers with segmental or equivalent refractive indices

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Miki Kamikawatoko Omoto ◽  
Hidemasa Torii ◽  
Sachiko Masui ◽  
Masahiko Ayaki ◽  
Kazuo Tsubota ◽  
...  
Ophthalmology ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 120 (11) ◽  
pp. 2184-2190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ireneusz Grulkowski ◽  
Jonathan J. Liu ◽  
Jason Y. Zhang ◽  
Benjamin Potsaid ◽  
Vijaysekhar Jayaraman ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
E. Pateras ◽  
A. I. Kouroupaki

Purpose: To compare central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements and their reproducibility when taken by Ultrasound Pachymetry, Ocular Biometry and Angiovue Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT). Methods: Twenty-five healthy volunteers were recruited creating a sample size of 50 eyes. All subjects had pachymetric measurements by Ultrasound pachymetry (PachPen Handheld Pachymeter, Keeler Instruments Inc), Ocular biometry (IOL Master 700 Swept Source Biometry, Zeiss) and Angiovue Optical Coherence Tomography (Optovue Avanti RTVue XR Angiovue). The measurements of central corneal thickness for the three devices were taken by the same examiner twice for more accuracy. Results: The average measurements of central corneal thickness by Ultrasound pachymetry (PachPen Handheld Pachymeter, Keeler Instruments Inc), Ocular biometry (IOL Master 700 Swept Source Biometry, Zeiss) and Angiovue Optical Coherence Tomography (Optovue Avanti RTVue XR Angiovue) were 547.26 μm, 551.36 μm, and 536.42 μm, respectively. The mean standard deviation (SD) of repeated measurements by Ocular biometry was 48.87 μm, which was greater than the mean SD of 44.24 μm and 40.35 μm (P < 0.001) by ultrasound pachymetry and Angiovue optical coherence tomography, respectively. There were statistically significant differences in the measurement results among the 3 methods (Ultrasound pachymetry vs. Ocular biometry P = 0.019; Ultrasound pachymetry vs. Angiovue Optical Coherence Tomography; P < 0.001; Ocular biometry vs. Angiovue Optical Coherence Tomography P < 0.001). There was a significant linear correlation between the Ultrasound pachymetry and Ocular biometry (r = 0.945, P<0.001), Ultrasound pachymetry and Angiovue Optical Coherence Tomography (r = 0.895, P<0.001), and Ocular biometry and Angiovue Optical Coherence Tomography (r = 0.902, P<0.001). Conclusion: Central corneal thickness readings were comparable between PachPen Handheld Pachymeter, IOL Master 700 Biometry and Angiovue Optical Coherence Tomography; Angiovue optical coherence tomography gave significantly smaller values. The measurements of the 3 methods showed significant linear correlations with one another. All methods provided acceptable repeatability of measurements.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (19) ◽  
pp. 4384
Author(s):  
Tadahiro Mitsukawa ◽  
Yumi Suzuki ◽  
Yosuke Momota ◽  
Shun Suzuki ◽  
Masakazu Yamada

In this paper, we assessed the short-term effects of 0.01% atropine eye drops on anterior segment parameters by performing ocular biometry using a swept-source anterior segment optical coherence tomography system (AS-OCT). We recruited 17 healthy volunteers (10 men and 7 women aged 24–35 years) with no history of eye disease. Participants without accommodative demand demonstrated significant mydriasis 1 h after the atropine instillation (4.58 ± 0.77 to 5.41 ± 0.83 mm). Pupil diameters with a 5 diopter (D) accommodative stimulus at 1 h (4.70 ± 1.13 mm) and 24 h (4.05 ± 1.06 mm) after atropine instillation were significantly larger than those at baseline (3.71 ± 0.84 mm). Barring pupil diameter, no other biometric parameters significantly changed at any point in time after atropine instillation without accommodative demand. However, with an accommodative stimulus, anterior chamber depth (ACD) at 1 h and posterior curvature of the lens at 1 and 24 h were both significantly larger than those before atropine instillation. Using AS-OCT, we detected a slight decrease in the accommodation response of ocular biometric components evoked by 0.01% atropine instillation. Morphologically, our measurements suggested a change in the ACD and horizontal radius of the lens’ posterior surface curvatures due to the subtle reduction of accommodation.


2020 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Montés-Micó ◽  
Francisco Pastor-Pascual ◽  
Ramón Ruiz-Mesa ◽  
Pedro Tañá-Rivero

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Giedre Pakuliene ◽  
Kirilas Zimarinas ◽  
Irena Nedzelskiene ◽  
Brent Siesky ◽  
Loreta Kuzmiene ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Anterior chamber angle anatomy in perspective of ocular biometry may be the key element to intraocular pressure (IOP) reduction, especially in glaucoma patients. We aim to investigate anterior chamber angle and biometrical data prior to cataract surgery in patients with and without glaucoma comorbidity. Materials and methods This prospective comparative case-control study included 62 subjects (38 with cataract only and 24 with cataract and glaucoma). A full ophthalmic examination including, Goldmann applanation tonometry, anterior chamber swept source optical coherence tomography (DRI OCT Triton plus (Ver.10.13)) and swept source optical biometry (IOL Master 700 v1.7) was performed on all participants. Results We found that ocular biometry parameters and anterior chamber parameters were not significantly different among groups. However, when we added cut-off values for narrow angles, we found that glaucoma group tended to have more narrow angles than control group. IOP was higher in glaucoma group despite all glaucoma patients having medically controlled IOP. In all subjects, anterior chamber parameters correlated well with lens position (LP), but less with relative lens position, while LP cut-off value of 5.1 mm could be used for predicting narrow anterior chamber angle parameters. Conclusions Cataract patients tend to develop narrow anterior chamber angles. Anterior chamber angle parameters have a positive moderate to strong relationship with lens position. LP may be used predicting narrow angles.


2022 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Gonzalez-Salinas ◽  
Sara González-Godínez ◽  
Roxana Saucedo-Urdapilleta ◽  
Mariana Mayorquín-Ruiz ◽  
Cecilio Velasco-Barona ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document