Accuracy of the Hand-held Wavefront Aberrometer in Measurement of Refractive Error
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Purpose: To compare refractive error measured by hand-held wavefront aberrometers with postcycloplegic autorefraction (AR) and cycloplegic refraction (CR). Methods: The medical records of patients who received refractive measurements using the wavefront aberrometer, postcycloplegic AR, and CR between January 2014 and January 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. The mean differences, 95% confidence intervals, and limits of agreement (LOA) were calculated for the refractive vector components (M, J0, and J45). Results: Fifty-one patients (9.0 ± 5.5 years, male 41.2%) were enrolled in this study, and only the right eye of each was included. Refractive errors ranged from -9.25 to +7.25 diopters (D) for spherical equivalent (median, 0.75 D). The M component was not significantly different among the three methods (p = 0.080). However, the J0 vector component was significantly different (p < 0.001). After post hoc analysis, the wavefront aberrometer obtained more positive values for J0 compared to the other methods. The J45 component was not significantly different among the three methods (p = 0.143). The mean difference between the wavefront aberrometer and postcycloplegic AR was -0.115 D (LOA, -1.578 to 1.348 D) for M, 0.239 D (LOA, -0.371 to 0.850 D) for J0, and -0.015 D (LOA, -0.768 to 0.738 D) for J45. The mean difference between the wavefront aberrometer and CR was -0.220 D (LOA, -1.790 to 1.350 D) for M, 0.300 D (LOA, -0.526 to 1.127 D) for J0, and -0.079 D (-0.662 to 0.504 D) for J45. Conclusions: The wavefront aberrometer showed good agreement with postcycloplegic AR and CR in spherical equivalents, but tended to produce slightly myopic results. The wavefront aberrometer also overestimated with-the-rule astigmatism. Therefore, we recommend that the device be used for estimations of refractive error, which may be useful for patients who have postural difficulties, live in undeveloped countries, or are bedridden.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare refractive error measured by hand-held wavefront aberrometers with postcycloplegic autorefraction (AR) and cycloplegic refraction (CR). Methods: The medical records of patients who received refractive measurements using the wavefront aberrometer, postcycloplegic AR, and CR between January 2014 and January 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. The mean differences, 95% confidence intervals, and limits of agreement (LOA) were calculated for the refractive vector components (M, J0, and J45). Results: Fifty-one patients (9.0 ± 5.5 years, male 41.2%) were enrolled in this study, and only the right eye of each was included. Refractive errors ranged from -9.25 to +7.25 diopters (D) for spherical equivalent (median, 0.75 D). The M component was not significantly different among the three methods (p = 0.080). However, the J0 vector component was significantly different (p < 0.001). After post hoc analysis, the wavefront aberrometer obtained more positive values for J0 compared to the other methods. The J45 component was not significantly different among the three methods (p = 0.143). The mean difference between the wavefront aberrometer and postcycloplegic AR was -0.115 D (LOA, -1.578 to 1.348 D) for M, 0.239 D (LOA, -0.371 to 0.850 D) for J0, and -0.015 D (LOA, -0.768 to 0.738 D) for J45. The mean difference between the wavefront aberrometer and CR was -0.220 D (LOA, -1.790 to 1.350 D) for M, 0.300 D (LOA, -0.526 to 1.127 D) for J0, and -0.079 D (-0.662 to 0.504 D) for J45. Conclusions: The wavefront aberrometer showed good agreement with postcycloplegic AR and CR in spherical equivalents, but tended to produce slightly myopic results. The wavefront aberrometer also overestimated with-the-rule astigmatism. Therefore, we recommend that the device be used for estimations of refractive error, which may be useful for patients who have postural difficulties, live in undeveloped countries, or are bedridden.
참고문헌 (29)
- Griffith JF, "The use of a mobile van for school vision screening : results of 63841 evaluations", Am J Ophthalmol, 163, pp.108~114 (2016)
- Durr NJ, "From unseen to seen : tackling the global burden of uncorrected refractive errors", Annu Rev Biomed Eng, 16, pp.131~153 (2014)
- Resnikoff S, "Global magnitude of visual impairment caused by uncorrected refractive errors in 2004", Bull World Health Organ, 86, pp.63~70 (2008)
- Ruderman M, "Children’s vision and eye health: a snapshot of current national issues", pp.7~12 (2016), National Center for Children’s Vision and Eye Health at Prevent Blindness
- Multi-Ethnic Pediatric Eye Disease Study(MEPEDS)Group, "Prevalence and causes of visual impairment in African-American and Hispanic preschool children : the multi-ethnic pediatric eye disease study", Ophthalmology, 116, pp.1990~2000 (2009)
- Mayro EL, "Prevalence of uncorrected refractive errors among school-age children in the School District of Philadelphia", J AAPOS, 22, pp.214~217 (2018)
- Dirani M, "The role of vision in academic school performance", Ophthalmic Epidemiol, 17, pp.18~24 (2010)
- Hervella L, "Assessment of subjective refraction with a clinical adaptive optics visual simulator", J Cataract Refract Surg, 45, pp.87~93 (2019)
- Zadnik K, "The repeatability of measurement of the ocular components", Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 33, pp.2325~2333 (1992)
- Sun JK, "Evaluation of visual acuity measurements after autorefraction vs manual refraction in eyes with and without diabetic macular edema", Arch Ophthalmol, 130, pp.470~479 (2012)
- Bullimore MA, "Patient acceptance of auto-refractor and clinician prescriptions : a randomized clinical trial", Vis Sci Appl, 1, pp.194~197 (1996)
- Durr NJ, "Quality of eyeglass prescriptions from a low-cost wavefront autorefractor evaluated in rural India : results of a 708-participant field study", BMJ Open Ophthalmol, 4, pp.e000225~ (2019)
- Visser N, "Evaluation of the comparability and repeatability of four wavefront aberrometers", Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 52, pp.1302~1311 (2011)
- Maeda N, "Wavefront aberrations measured with Hartmann-Shack sensor in patients with keratoconus", Ophthalmology, 109, pp.1996~2003 (2002)
- Vasudevan B, "Comparison of objective refraction in darkness to cycloplegic refraction : a pilot study", Clin Exp Optom, 99, pp.168~172 (2016)
- Cordonnier M, "Non-cycloplegic screening for refractive errors in children with the hand-held autorefractor Retinomax : final results and comparison with non-cycloplegic photoscreening", Strabismus, 9, pp.59~70 (2001)
- Rosenfield M, "Repeatability of subjective and objective refraction", Optom Vis Sci, 72, pp.577~579 (1995)
- Guirao A, "A method to predict refractive errors from wave aberration data", Optom Vis Sci, 80, pp.36~42 (2003)
- Liu YC, "Power vector analysis of refractive, corneal, and internal astigmatism in an elderly Chinese population: the Shihpai Eye Study", Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 52, pp.9651~9657 (2011)
- Cohen J, "A power primer", Psychol Bull, 112, pp.155~159 (1992)
- Bland JM, "Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement", Lancet, 1, pp.307~310 (1986)
- Liang CL, "Comparison of measurements of refractive errors between the hand-held Retinomax and on-table autorefractors in cyclopleged and noncyclopleged children", Am J Ophthalmol, 136, pp.1120~1128 (2003)
- Iuorno JD, "Clinical comparison of the Welch Allyn SureSight handheld autorefractor versus cycloplegic autorefraction and retinoscopic refraction", J AAPOS, 8, pp.123~127 (2004)
- Martinez AA, "Comparison of aberrometer and autorefractor measures of refractive error in children", Optom Vis Sci, 83, pp.811~817 (2006)
- Salmon TO, "Evaluation of a clinical aberrometer for lower-order accuracy and repeatability, higher-order repeatability, and instrument myopia", Optometry, 76, pp.461~472 (2005)
- Cheng X, "Validation of a clinical Shack-Hartmann aberrometer", Optom Vis Sci, 80, pp.587~595 (2003)
- Pesudovs K, "The precision of wavefront refraction compared to subjective refraction and autorefraction", Optom Vis Sci, 84, pp.387~392 (2007)
- Bennett JR, "Comparison of refractive assessment by wavefront aberrometry, autorefraction, and subjective refraction", J Optom, 8, pp.109~115 (2015)
- Fernandez de Castro LE, "Relationship between cycloplegic and wavefront-derived refraction", J Refract Surg, 19, pp.S677~S681 (2003)