4.6 Article

Tear Meniscus Evaluation by Anterior Segment Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 155, 期 4, 页码 620-624

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2012.11.009

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To investigate the repeatability of tear meniscus measurements using anterior segment swept-source optical coherence tomography (OCT) and the relationship of tear meniscus measurements with tear film breakup time and Schirmer test results. DESIGN: Prospective, observational, cross-sectional study. METHODS: We enrolled 26 healthy subjects (26 eyes; 20 men and 6 women; mean age, 36.5 +/- 6.8 years) at the University of Tokyo School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan, in this study. Examinations were conducted in the following sequence: anterior segment vertical raster scans by swept-source OCT, tear film breakup time, and Schirmer test. Each subject underwent OCT measurements twice by the same grader, and the central upper and lower tear menisci height and area and the lower tear meniscus volume were examined. Each OCT image was evaluated by 2 masked graders using the software calipers. RESULTS: The average upper and lower tear meniscus heights were 231 +/- 78 mu m and 256 +/- 57 mu m, respectively, and the average upper and lower tear meniscus areas were 18 829 +/- 7823 mu m(2) and 21 903 +/- 8173 mu m(2), respectively. The average tear meniscus volume was 0.1327 +/- 0.051 mm(3). The intergrader intraclass correlations for all the parameters were more than 95%. The OCT tear meniscus measurements and the Schirmer test scores were correlated significantly (P < .05, Spearman nonparametric correlation analysis). However, tear film breakup time was not correlated significantly with any of the parameters of tear menisci (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Anterior segment swept-source OCT is a noninvasive and practical method that can be used for quantitative evaluation of tear fluid. (Am J Ophthalmol 2013;155:620-624. (C) 2013 by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据