Advertisement

Journal of Ultrasound

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 447–452 | Cite as

A comparative evaluation of cataract classifications based on shear-wave elastography and B-mode ultrasound findings

  • Mesut OzgokceEmail author
  • Muhammed Batur
  • Muhammed Alpaslan
  • Alpaslan Yavuz
  • Abdussamet Batur
  • Erbil Seven
  • Harun Arslan
Original Paper

Abstract

In this study, a comparison is made of the findings of B-mode ultrasound and ultrasound elastography with the Lens Opacities Classification (LOCS) grade in patients with senile cataracts. A total of 74 patients with cataracts and 32 age-matched healthy volunteers as the control group were evaluated in the departments of ophthalmology and radiology between 2016 and 2017. In the patient group, cataracts were graded according to LOCS, and B-mode sonographic appearance and elasticity measurements were recorded, after which the cataract grade and sonoelastography/B-mode ultrasound findings were compared using statistical methods. Among the 74 patients with cataracts, 38 were females (51.4%) and 36 were males (48.6%), and the mean age was 62.05 ± 7.95 (43–78) years. A Chi-square test revealed a significant relationship between ultrasound echogenicity of cataract and grade of cataract (p < 0.005). The ultrasound elastography revealed a mean shear-wave velocity of 2.90 m/s ± 0.371 (2.13–3.53) among patients with grade 3 cataracts, 3.1 m/s ± 0.45 (2.26–3.98) among patients with grade 4, 3 m/s ± 0.58 (2.35–4.60) among patients with grade 5 and 3 m/s ± 0.528 (2.31–4.50) among patients with grade 6 cataracts, and 3 m/s ± 0.258 (2.36–3.58) among the normal subjects. No statistically significant difference was noted in the analysis of variance (p > 0.005). While cataract grade and B mode echogenicity were directly proportional, there was no significant difference in lens elasticity.

Keywords

Cataract Elastography Ultrasonography 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Funding

No funding was received.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Nirmalan PK, Robin AL, Katz J, Tielsch JM, Thulasiraj RD, Krishnadas R, Ramakrishnan R (2004) Risk factors for age related cataract in a rural population of southern India: the Aravind Comprehensive Eye Study. Br J Ophthalmol 88:989–994 [PubMed: 15258010] CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allen D, Vasavada A (2006) Cataract and surgery for cataract. BMJ 333:128–132 [PubMed: 16840470] CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chatterjee A, Milton RC, Thyle S (1982) Prevalence and aetiology of cataract in Punjab. Br J Ophthalmol 66:35–42 [PubMed: 7055541] CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Congdon NG, Friedman DS, Lietman T (2003) Important causes of visual impairment in the world today. JAMA 290(15):2057–2060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pascolini D, Mariotti SP, Pokharel GP et al (2004) 2002 global update of available data on visual impairment: a compilation of population-based prevalence studies. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 11:67–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maraini G, Pasquini P, Tomba MC et al (1989) An independent evaluation of the Lens Opacities Classification System II (LOCS II); the Italian–American Cataract Study Group. Ophthalmology 96:611–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chylack LT, Wolfe JK, Singer DM et al (1993) The lens opacities classification system III. Arch Ophthalmol 111:831–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Karbassi M, Khu PM, Singer DM, Chylack LT Jr (1993) Evaluation of Lens Opacities Classification System III applied at the slitlamp. Optom Vis Sci 70:923–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hall NF, Lempert P, Shier RP, Zakir R, Phillips D (1999) Grading nuclear cataract: reproducibility and validity of a new method. Br J Ophthalmol 83(10):1159–1163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McAlinden C, Khadka J, Pesudovs K (2011) A comprehensive evaluation of the precision (repeatability and reproducibility) of the Oculus Pentacam HR. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52(10):7731–7737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Skiadaresi E, McAlinden C, Ravalico G, Moore J (2012) Optical coherence tomography measurements with the LENTIS Mplus multifocal intraocular lens. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 250(9):1395–1398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hockwin O, Dragomirescu V, Laser H (1982) Measurements of lens transparency or its disturbances by densitometric image analysis of scheimpflug photographs. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 219(6):255–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Magno BV, Freidlin V, Datiles MB III (1994) Reproducibility of the NEI scheimpflug cataract imaging system. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 35(7):3078–3084Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Datiles MB III, Magno BV, Freidlin V (1995) Study of nuclear cataract progression using the national eye institute scheimpflug system. Br J Ophthalmol 79(6):527–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dubbelman M, Van der Heijde GL (2001) The shape of the aging human lens: curvature, equivalent refractive index and the lens paradox. Vis Res 41(14):1867–1877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wong AL, Leung CK-S, Weinreb RN et al (2009) Quantitative assessment of lens opacities with anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Br J Ophthalmol 93(1):61–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim YN, Park JH, Tchah H (2016) Quantitative analysis of lens nuclear density using optical coherence tomography (OCT) with a liquid optics interface: correlation between OCT images and LOCS III grading. J Ophthalmol 2016:3025413PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ozgokce M, Yavuz A, Akbudak I, Durmaz F et al (2018) Usability of transthoracic shear wave elastography in differentiation of subpleural solid masses. Ultrasound Q 34(4):233–237.  https://doi.org/10.1097/RUQ.0000000000000374 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shiina T, Ito M, Sugata Y, Yamamoto Y (1992) An application of ultrasonic tissue characterization to the diagnosis of cataract. In Proceedings of the annual international conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, vol 14. Paris, France, 29 October–1 November 1992, 2768AGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Società Italiana di Ultrasonologia in Medicina e Biologia (SIUMB) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mesut Ozgokce
    • 1
    Email author
  • Muhammed Batur
    • 2
  • Muhammed Alpaslan
    • 3
  • Alpaslan Yavuz
    • 4
  • Abdussamet Batur
    • 5
  • Erbil Seven
    • 2
  • Harun Arslan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Medical FacultyYuzuncu Yıl UniversityVanTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Ophthalmology, Medical FacultyYuzuncu Yıl UniversityVanTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Radiology, Medical FacultyAhi Evran UniversityKırsehirTurkey
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyAntalya Researching and Training HospitalAntalyaTurkey
  5. 5.Department of Radiology, Medical FacultySelcuk UniversityKonyaTurkey

Personalised recommendations