目的：比较Pentacam三维眼前节分析仪与iTrace视觉分析仪在暗室环境中检测近视眼Kappa角的一致性。方法：采用回顾性研究，对近视门诊的86例志愿者共172眼使用iTrace视觉分析仪和Pentacam三维眼前节分析仪，分别测量其Kappa角，收集所测数据采用SPSS软件进行一致性分析。结果：Pentacam三维眼前节分析仪与iTrace视觉分析仪的Kappa角测量结果中，横坐标X值、纵坐标Y值和方位角度值比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)；弦距离值比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论：Pentacam三维眼前节分析仪与iTrace视觉分析仪在近视患者Kappa角测量结果一致性存在差异，临床上应谨慎替换使用。
Objective: To compare the consistency of Pentacamand iTrace in detecting anglekappa. Methods: A retrospective study was carried out on a total of 172 eyes of 86 volunteers to measure the anglekappa by iTrace visual analyzer and Pentacamanterior section analyzer in Zhengzhou Aier Eye Hospital. The measured data were collected and analyzed by SPSS software. Results: In the measurement results between Pentacam and iTrace , there was a statistically significant difference in the X value, Y value, and azimuth angle values of the horizontal axis (P<0.05); There was no statistically significant difference in chord distance values (P>0.05). Conclusions: 3-D anterior section analyzer the significant difference is found in the concordance of the anglekappa measurement results between the Pentacam and iTrace. It should be caution to replace two kinds of equipment in clinical practice.
目的：比较VX120多功能眼检查仪与Topcon KR 800全自动验光仪的客观验光结果的一致性。方法：收集2019年1 1月至2019年1 2月在我院就诊拟行角膜屈光手术的患者2 4例(24只眼)，所有患者均取右眼。采用Topcon KR 800全自动验光仪和VX120多功能眼检查仪分别对2 4例患者进行客观验光检查，分别得到球镜光度(S)、柱镜光度(C)、等效球镜光度(M)、水平和垂直方向的柱镜光度(J0)及45°柱镜光度( J45)。采用配对T检验对两种设备的测量值进行组间比较，并采用Bland-Altman 95%一致性界限法衡量其一致性。结果：VX120多功能眼检查仪在明视模式下所测S为(-3.90±3.06) D；M为(-4.41±3.24) D；J0为(0.34±0.58) D；J45为(?0.04±0.26) D；TopconKR800全自动验光仪所测S为(-3.77±2.88) D；M为(-4.15±3.07) D；J0为(0.25±0.47) D；J45为(-0.01±0.18) D。VX120多功能眼检查仪在明视模式与TopconKR800全自动验光仪所测得的S、M、J45差异无统计学意义，而J0两者之间差异有统计学意义(t=-2.24，P=0.04)。Bland-Altman95%一致性分析显示，两种仪器参数数据点多分布在95%可信区间内，一致性较好。结论：VX120多功能眼检查仪明视模式下与TopconKR800全自动验光仪的客观验光结果一致性较好，在屈光度检查上可以相互替代。
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the consistency of objective optometry results between VX120 multi-diagnostic unit and TopconKR800 automatic optometer. Methods: A total of 24 patients (24 right eyes) admitted to our hospital from November 2019 to December 2019 for corneal refractive surgery were collected. Optometry was performed on 24 patients with TopconKR800 automatic optometer and VX120 multi-diagnostic unit, and got the results following: spherical mirror photometry (S), cylindrical lens luminosity (C), mean spherical equivalent (M), horizontal and vertical cylindrical lens luminosity ( J0) and 45° cylindrical lens luminosity ( J45). Compared T-test analysis was used to compare the parameters of the two devices, and the Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement were performed. Results: The S measured by the VX120 multi-diagnostic unit with bright mode was (-3.90±3.06) D; M was (-4.41±3.24) D; J0 was (0.34±0.58) D;J45 was (-0.04±0.26) D. The S measured by TopconKR800 automatic optometer was (-3.77±2.88) D; M was (-4.15±3.07) D; J0 was (0.25±0.47) D; J45 was (-0.01±0.18) D. There was no statistically significant difference in S, M, and J45 measured by VX120 multi-diagnostic unit and TopconKR800 automatic optometer in bright mode, while there was statistically significant difference in J0 between VX120 multi-diagnostic unit and TopconKR800 automatic optometer (t=-2.24, P=0.04). Bland-Altman 95% consistency analysis showed that the data points of the two instruments were mostly distributed within the 95% confidence interval, indicating that the parameters measured by these two devices were in accord with each other. Conclusion: The objective optometry results of VX120 multi-diagnostic unit and TopconKR800 automatic optometer were consistent and can be substituted for each other in the refraction examination.
