April 2010
Volume 51, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2010
A Comparison of the Accuracy and Efficiency of an Innovative Ultrasound Device With Routine A Scan Biometry in a Resident Clinic Setting
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • M. Liu
    Ophthalmology, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York
  • R. U. Desai
    Ophthalmology, Department of Veterans Affairs New York Harbor Healthcare System, Brooklyn, New York
  • B. Enriquez
    Ophthalmology, Department of Veterans Affairs New York Harbor Healthcare System, Brooklyn, New York
  • E. Smith
    Ophthalmology, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York
    Ophthalmology, Department of Veterans Affairs New York Harbor Healthcare System, Brooklyn, New York
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  M. Liu, None; R.U. Desai, None; B. Enriquez, None; E. Smith, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2010, Vol.51, 5438. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      M. Liu, R. U. Desai, B. Enriquez, E. Smith; A Comparison of the Accuracy and Efficiency of an Innovative Ultrasound Device With Routine A Scan Biometry in a Resident Clinic Setting. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2010;51(13):5438.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract
 
Purpose:
 

To evaluate the accuracy and efficiency of axial length measurements by the Eye Cubed A-scan in contact manual, contact automatic, immersion manual, and immersion automatic modes in comparison to the Sonomed 5500 A-scan in contact manual mode.

 
Methods:
 

The axial length of 30 eyes from 15 patients with cataracts was measured using 5 different techniques by a single operator: Eye Cubed A-scan in contact manual, contact automatic, immersion manual, and immersion automatic modes and Sonomed A-scan in contact manual mode. The time required to complete each technique was recorded and defined as the time from initial instrument-to-eye contact to obtainment of the 5th axial length scan that provided a standard deviation of 0.05 or less.

 
Results:
 

There was no statistically significant difference between the axial lengths measured amongst SonoMed contact manual and any Eye Cubed automated measurement (contact p=0.25, immersion p=0.29).For each method, timing (average and standard deviation) was the following: SonoMed contact manual (97.7 ± 51.1 sec), Eye Cubed contact manual (17.8 ± 11.5 sec), Eye Cubed contact automatic (156.6 ± 98.0 sec), Eye Cubed immersion manual (7.5 ± 4.6 sec), and Eye Cubed immersion automatic (47.2 ± 61.5 sec).Compared to SonoMed’s contact manual mode, the Eye Cubed provided a statistically significant improvement in measurement timing using the manual modes of contact (p=0.0004) and immersion (p=0.0002): Figure. There was no statistically significant improvement in timing using the automated measurements modes with either contact (p=0.11) or immersion (p=0.10).

 
Conclusions:
 

Our study suggests that the Eye Cubed axial lengths are comparable to those obtained by SonoMed. Moreover, Eye Cubed’s most reliable setting, immersion manual, provides accurate axial lengths in one tenth of the time compared to the SonoMed and can significantly improve the efficiency of a resident clinic.  

 
Keywords: anterior segment • cataract • training/teaching cataract surgery 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×