scholarly journals Comparison of IOL power & axial length estimated by optical biomicroscopy and ultrasonic biometry.

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-17
Author(s):  
Dr. M. Ramesh Chandra ◽  
◽  
Dr. Kavya Konda ◽  
Dr. S. Mounica ◽  
Dr. T. Sreevathsala ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Axial Length ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Weighted Kappa ◽  
Power Estimation ◽  
Optical Biometry ◽  
Cost Effective Method ◽  
Iol Power ◽  
Spss Software

Aim: To compare IOL power & axial length estimated by optical biometry (OB) and ultrasonicbiometry (UB). Material & methods: A prospective & comparative study was planned to compareaxial length & IOL power calculated by Appa Scan AME - 01A (Appasamy Associates, India) (UB) &IOL master 500 (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany) (OB). Autokeratometry evaluated using IOLmaster 500 & SRK/T formula were taken for IOL power estimation. Spss software version 20.0 wasused for analysis. Results: Overall agreement between UB & OB for axial length & IOL power wasexcellent ( weighted kappa 0.807 & 0.825 respectively). Conclusion: Ultrasound biometry, a cost-effective method for IOL power & axial length calculation, still holds value as compared to opticalbiometry for routine cataract surgeries.

scholarly journals Comparison of corneal power estimated by IOL master and manual keratometry

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-21
Author(s):  
Dr. P. Sanjeeva Kumar ◽  
◽  
Dr. T. Sreevathsala ◽  
Dr. M. Tejaswini ◽  
Dr. Kavya Konda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Axial Length ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Weighted Kappa ◽  
Power Estimation ◽  
Optical Biometry ◽  
Corneal Power ◽  
Cost Effective Method ◽  
Iol Power ◽  
Spss Software

Aim: To compare IOL power & axial length estimated by optical biometry (OB) and ultrasonicbiometry (UB). Material & methods: A prospective & comparative study was planned to compareaxial length & IOL power calculated by Appa Scan AME - 01A (Appasamy Associates, India) (UB) &IOL master 500 (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany) (OB). Autokeratometry evaluated using IOLmaster 500 & SRK/T formula were taken for IOL power estimation. Spss software version 20.0 wasused for analysis. Results: Overall agreement between UB & OB for axial length & IOL power wasexcellent ( weighted kappa 0.807 & 0.825 respectively). Conclusion: Ultrasound biometry, a cost-effective method for IOL power & axial length calculation, still holds value as compared to opticalbiometry for routine cataract surgeries.

scholarly journals Comparison of biometric methods in young children with congenital cataracts in their eyes

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 11-18
Author(s):  
T. B Kruglova ◽  
Tatyana N. Kiseleva ◽  
L. A. Katargina ◽  
N. S. Egiyan ◽  
A. S. Mamykina ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Young Children ◽  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Axial Length ◽  
Power Calculation ◽  
Congenital Cataracts ◽  
Optical Biometry ◽  
Iol Power Calculation ◽  
Length Difference ◽  
Iol Power

BACKGROUND: Relevant keratometric and biometric indicators are necessary for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation, which is difficult to verify in young children. AIM: Evaluation of the accuracy of various ultrasound methods and optical biometry for axial length measurement in young children with congenital cataracts. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-six children (74 eyes) with congenital cataracts (43 eyes) and pseudophakia (31 eyes) at the age of 6 months to 4 years were examined. Various methods measured the axial length: ultrasound A-scan under general anesthesia by US-4000, ultrasound B-scan without general anesthesia by Voluson E8, and optical biometry by AL-Scan in cases of transparent optics. RESULTS: The greater axial length difference was observed between A-scan and optical biometry (less by 0,78 mm) than between B-scan and optical biometry (more by 0,27 mm). The median axial length difference between A-scan and B-scan was equal for infants and young children with congenital cataracts (0,525 mm and 0,535 mm, respectively). CONCLUSION: Axial length should be measured by different methods in young children with their further comparison to obtaining more accurate biometric indicators for IOL power calculation. The decrease of 12 mm in axial length, which occurs during the A-scan, can lead to errors in the IOL calculation of 36 diopters and unplanned refraction in the long-term period.

scholarly journals TO EVALUATE THE CLINICAL ACCURACY OF ULTRASOUND AND OPTICAL BIOMETRY: A COMPARATIVE STUDY.

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Archana Kumari ◽  
Sony Sinha
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Visual Outcome ◽  
Female Group ◽  
Power Calculation ◽  
Optical Biometry ◽  
Department Of Ophthalmology ◽  
Clinical Accuracy ◽  
Iol Power ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Group 1

Aim: to compare the clinical accuracy between ultrasound and optical biometry Material and methods: prospective comparative study was conducted on 200 randomly selected patients diagnosed with cataract without underlying pathology visited the department of Ophthalmology, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna, Bihar, India. Group-1 IOL power calculated by optical biometer (N=100) and Group-2 IOL power calculated by ultrasound biometry (N=100). Results: mean age of the study population was 60.21 years. Majority of the patients affected with cataract were female. Group 1 showed better visual outcome postoperatively than compared with ultrasound A scan in Group 2 (p≤0.05). Conclusion: concluded that optical biometry with the AL scan (Nidek) found to be more accurate than ultrasound biometry for IOL power calculation Keywords: AL scan, Biometry, IOL  

scholarly journals Comparison of Biometric Values and Intraocular Lens Power Calculations Obtained by Ultrasound and Optical Biometry

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 321-326
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Cvetkovic ◽  
Suncica Sreckovic ◽  
Marko Petrovic
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Lens ◽  
Axial Length ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Optical Biometry ◽  
Refractive Power ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Iol Power ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Lens Power

Abstract This study sought to compare the biometric values and intraocular lens (IOL) power obtained by standard ultrasound and optical biometry. We examined 29 eyes in preparation for cataract surgery. None of the patients had refractive surgery or corneal anomaly. In all patients, the horizontal and vertical refractive power of the cornea was determined using a keratometer (Bausch&Lomb). The axial length of the eye was determined via A-scan ultrasound (BVI-compact-V-plus) using Hollady’s formula. The IOL power and complete biometric measurements were obtained via an IOL Master-500-Zeiss using the Hollady-2 formula. All obtained values were compared and analysed using the statistical program SPSS 20. The average age of treated patients was 71.21±1.68 years. In 16 patients with dense cataracts (55.17%), it was not possible to determine the IOL power by optical biometry. Optical biometry obtained significantly increased axial length values of 24.04±0.29 mm compared with those obtained with ultrasound biometry (23.89±0.28 mm, p=0.003). The mean refractive cornea power values of the horizontal meridian measured using a keratometer (42.50±0.47 D) and an IOL Master (42.69±0.49 D) were not statistically different (p=0.187). The mean values of the refractive cornea power of the vertical meridian obtained using a keratometer (42.62±0.48D) and an IOL Master (43.36±0.51 D) exhibited a statistically significant difference (p=0.000). The keratometer obtained statistically significant lower mean values of corneal refractive power (42.73±0.32 D) compared with those obtained with optical biometry (43.22±0.35 D, p=0.000). Ultrasound biometry obtained significantly increased the mean values of IOL power (20.19±0.48D) compared with those obtained with optical biometry (19.71±0.48 D, p=0.018). The large number of patients who receive an operation for dense cataracts indicate the need for representation of both biometric methods in our clinical practice.

scholarly journals The comparative study of applanation and optical coherence biometry methods for the intra ocular lens power calculation

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (03) ◽  
pp. 01-08
Author(s):  
Mahesh Chandra ◽  
Jitendra Singh ◽  
Mahesh Chandra Agarwal ◽  
Govind Singh Titiyal
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Axial Length ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Power Calculation ◽  
Optical Coherence ◽  
Perfect Agreement ◽  
Iol Power Calculation ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Iol Power ◽  
Lens Power

Purpose: To compare applanation biometry (A-Scan) and optical coherence biometry (AL-Scan) methods for IOL power calculation based on Axial Length and post operative refractive outcome. Methodology: Prospective and Interventional Randomized Comparative Study, Sample size of 400, studied under two sub groups, for Axial Length readings and IOL power calculation by A-Scan (Biomedix) and AL-Scan (Nidek). Keratometry readings are taken only by AL-Scan.Results: Mean ± St. dev. of A.L. measured by App. Biometry was low (22.79 ± 0.9 mm) than Opt. Coh. Biometry (23.16 ± 0.78 mm) to be significant (P= .0001). Mean ± St. dev. IOL power was higher (21.75 ± 2.1D) than App. Biometry (20.88 ± 1.59 D) to be significant (P= 0.0001). Mean ± St. dev. of refractive status for Myopia is higher -0.97 ± 0.53 by App. Biometry than Opt. Coh. Biometry -0.5 ± 0.19, to be significant (P= 0.0001) and Mean ± St.dev. for Hyperopia is higher 0.98 ± 0.59 by App. Biometry than Opt. Coh. Biometry 0.46 ± 0.18, to be significant (P= 0.0001). Bland–Altman plots showed perfect agreement between both methods regarding A.L. and calculated IOL power. Further subgroup analysis revealed a statistically significant difference in different age groups and types of cataract for Posterior Sub capsular cataract alone and Nuclear Sclerosis with Posterior Sub capsular cataract (P= 0.001). Conclusion: There is significant difference between App. and Opt. Coh. Biometry; however, certain situations of Cataract is demanding mandatory role of App. Biometry.

CAD Of Anticorrosive Protection Of Steel Structures

2019 ◽  
pp. 18-23
Keyword(s):  
Protective Coating ◽  
Computer Aided Design ◽  
Steel Structures ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Operating Conditions ◽  
Computational Tool ◽  
Protection Method ◽  
Cost Effective Method ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Aided Design

The choice of cost-effective method of anticorrosive protection of steel structures is an urgent and time consuming task, considering the significant number of protection ways, differing from each other in the complex of technological, physical, chemical and economic characteristics. To reduce the complexity of solving this problem, the author proposes a computational tool that can be considered as a subsystem of computer-aided design and used at the stage of variant and detailed design of steel structures. As a criterion of the effectiveness of the anti-corrosion protection method, the cost of the protective coating during the service life is accepted. The analysis of existing methods of steel protection against corrosion is performed, the possibility of their use for the protection of the most common steel structures is established, as well as the estimated period of effective operation of the coating. The developed computational tool makes it possible to choose the best method of protection of steel structures against corrosion, taking into account the operating conditions of the protected structure and the possibility of using a protective coating.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document