两种眼表综合分析仪对眼表功能评价及舒适度的比较

Comparison of Two Types of Comprehensive Eye Surface Analyzers for Evaluation of Ocular Surface Function and Comfort

摘要: 目的：评估Keratograph 5M和SLM-KD3两款眼表综合分析仪在进行眼表功能检测时的一致性和舒适性。方法：收集眼科体检中心的29名正常年轻人，以右眼为研究眼，共29只眼，使用仪器A (Ker-atograph 5M)和仪器B (裂隙灯显微镜检查仪：SLM-KD3)，对每位受试者进行非侵入性泪河高度(NIKTMH)、非侵入性首次泪膜破裂时间(NIBUTf)和非侵入性平均泪膜破裂时间(NIBUTav)、眼红指数(R-Scan)的检测。采用视觉模拟评分法(VAS)评估检测过程中的舒适度。结果：本研究纳入29例受试者(共29只眼)，平均年龄19.31 ± 0.60岁。两种仪器检测舒适度评分无明显差异(p = 0.876)。两种仪器的各指标测量结果为：NIKTMH (0.23 ± 0.06 vs 0.20 ± 0.04, p = 0.001)、NIBUTf (10.42 ± 4.96 vs 8.21 ± 4.30, p = 0.007)、NIBUTav (13.18 ± 4.71 vs 11.04 ± 5.05, p = 0.022)、R-Scan评分(0.56 ± 0.17 vs 1.35 ± 0.44, p < 0.000)。两种仪器同一指标的ICC系数均 < 0.75。结论：Keratograph5M和SLM-KD3之间在舒适度上无明显差异，在测量眼部参数上存在差异，两种仪器检测同一指标的一致性较差。

Abstract: Purpose: To evaluate the consistency and comfort of two ocular surface analyzers, Keratograph 5M and SLM-KD3, in performing ocular surface function tests. Methods: Twenty-nine young individuals from an ophthalmic examination center were recruited, with the right eye selected as the study eye, resulting in a total of 29 eyes. Instrument A (Keratograph 5M) and instrument B (SLM-KD3 slit lamp biomicroscope) were used to measure non-invasive tear meniscus height (NIKTMH), non-invasive first non-invasive tear break-up time (NIBUTf), non-invasive average non-invasive tear break-up time (NIBUTav), and redness scan (R-Scan). Comfort during the testing process was evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS). Results: The study included 29 participants (29 eyes) with a mean age of 19.31 ± 0.60 years. There was no significant difference in comfort scores between the two in-struments (p = 0.876). The measurements obtained with the two instruments for each parameter were as follows: NIKTMH (0.23 ± 0.06 vs 0.20 ± 0.04, p = 0.001), NIBUTf (10.42 ± 4.96 vs 8.21 ± 4.30, p = 0.007), NIBUTav (13.18 ± 4.71 vs 11.04 ± 5.05, p = 0.022), R-Scan score (0.56 ± 0.17 vs 1.35 ± 0.44, p < 0.000). The ICC coefficients for the same parameter measured by the two instru-ments were all less than 0.75. Conclusion: There was no significant difference in comfort between the Keratograph 5M and SLM-KD3, but there were differences in measuring ocular parameters. The consistency between the two instruments in measuring the same parameter was poor.