摘要目的 比较UBM、A超、Orbscan、IOL Master 700及IOL Master 5.0这五种仪器测量前房深度结果的差异性、相关性及一致性.方法 选取2018年1月至3月郑州市第二人民医院眼科门诊就诊患者63例(126眼)的资料,其中男30例(60眼)的资料,女33例(66眼).年龄19～71岁,平均(30.13±10.73)岁.分别采用上述五种仪器测量前房深度,结果进行统计学分析.结果 UBM、A超、Orbscan、IOL Master 700及IOL Master 5.0测得前房深度平均值依次为(3.08±0.29) mm、(3.11±0.35)mm、(2.98±0.28)mm、(3.07±0.28)mm,及(3.46±0.36) mm.五组数据相比差异有统计学意义(F=16.422,P=0.000),其中IOL Master 5.0测量值与其它四组测量值之间差异有统计学意义,其它的四组数据之间差异无统计学意义(P=0.160).五组数据间有较好的一致性均呈线性相关(Pall=0.000).结论 五种仪器测量前房深度具有较好的相关性、一致性,其中前四种仪器测量前房深度时相互之间可以替代,而IOL Master 5.0的前房深度测量值较其它四种仪器的测量值偏高.

abstractsObjective To compare the difference,relevances and consistencies of the results of anterior chamber depth determinated with UBM,A scan ultrasonography,Orbscan,IOL Master 700 and IOL Master 5.0.Methods Total of 126 eyes of 63 patients from Jan.2018 to Mar.2018 in outpatient department of Zhengzhou Municipal Second People's Hospital were sellected.There were 60 eyes of 30 males and 66 eyes of 33 females.The age ranged from 19 to 71 years,with average of (30.13±10.73)years.The anterior chamber depth were determinated with UBM,A scan ultrasonography,Orbscan,IOL Master 700 and IOL Master5.0.Results The average anterior chamber depth with UBM,A scan ultrasonography,Orbscan,IOL Master 700 and IOL Master 5.0 were (3.08 ± 0.29),(3.11 ± 0.35),(2.98 ± 0.28),(3.07 ± 0.28) and (3.46t±0.36) ram,respectively.The differences were statistically significant among five groups (F =16.422,P=0.000).The differences were not statistically significant among the four methods except IOL Master 5.0 (P=0.160).There were linear correlations among five groups (Pall =0.000) and good consistences.Conclusion There are good consistencies and relevances of the anterior chamber depth with UBM,A scan ultrasonography,Orbscan,IOL Master 700 and IOL Master 5.0.The anterior chamber depth determinated with IOL Master 5.0 are higher than that with other methods.