A Comparison of a Traditional and Wavefront Autorefraction

被引:28
作者
Lebow, Kenneth A. [1 ]
Campbell, Charles E. [1 ]
机构
[1] Salus Univ, Penn Coll Optometry, Philadelphia, PA USA
关键词
autorefraction; aberrometer; refractive error; spherical equivalent; cross-cylinder difference; SUBJECTIVE REFRACTION; NIDEK AR-1000; REPEATABILITY; ACCURACY;
D O I
10.1097/OPX.0000000000000378
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Purpose To evaluate the agreement between the autorefraction function of the Canon RK-F2, an autorefractor/keratometer based on the ray deflection principle, and the Carl Zeiss Vision i.Profiler(Plus), an wavefront aberrometer, compared with each other and with a noncycloplegic subjective refraction. Methods Objective refraction results obtained using both instruments were compared with noncycloplegic subjective refractions for 174 eyes of 100 participants. Analysis of sphere, cylinder, and axis using spherical equivalent difference and a new measurement, cross-cylinder difference, was performed. The spherical equivalent refraction and cross-cylinder difference for the manifest refraction were compared using Bland-Altman limits of agreement and 95th percentile analysis. Results The 100 participants represent 52 women and 48 men with a mean (SD) age of 51.7 (+/- 13.8) years, an average (+/- SD) spherical power of -0.67 (+/- 2.53) diopters (D), and an average (+/- SD) cylinder power of -0.94 (+/- 0.87) D. The spherical equivalent difference is 0.03 D (Canon) and -0.11 D (Zeiss). The 95% limits of agreement for the spherical equivalent are -0.69 to 0.75 D (Canon) and -0.75 to 0.75 D (Zeiss). The mean cross-cylinder power difference is -0.08 D (Canon) and 0.02 D (Zeiss). The 95% limits of agreement for the cross-cylinder power difference are 0.63 to 0.50 D (Canon) and 0.49 to 0.75 D (Zeiss). The mean axis power difference is -0.04 D (Canon) and 0.05 D (Zeiss). The 95% limits of agreement for axis power difference are -0.71 to 0.63 D (Canon) and -0.78 to 0.78 D (Zeiss). The double-angle astigmatic plot center of distribution for the RK-F2 is 0.035 D at 70 degrees, and that for the i.Profiler(Plus) is 0.053 D at 32 degrees. Conclusions Both instruments provided clinically useful spherical equivalent refractive data compared with a subjective refraction, whereas the Canon RK-F2 was slightly more accurate in determining the cylinder power compared with a subjective refraction.
引用
收藏
页码:1191 / 1198
页数:8
相关论文
共 33 条
  • [1] Repeatability and validity of the PowerRefractor and the Nidek AR600-A in an adult population with healthy eyes
    Allen, PM
    Radhakrishnan, H
    O'Leary, DJ
    [J]. OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE, 2003, 80 (03) : 245 - 251
  • [2] Benjamin WJ, 2005, REV OPTOM, V142
  • [3] Bland JM, 1999, STAT METHODS MED RES, V8, P135, DOI 10.1177/096228029900800204
  • [4] The repeatability of automated and clinician refraction
    Bullimore, MA
    Fusaro, RE
    Adams, CW
    [J]. OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE, 1998, 75 (08) : 617 - 622
  • [5] A method to analyze cylinder axis error
    Campbell, C
    [J]. OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE, 1999, 76 (04) : 254 - 255
  • [7] Canon, 2012, RK F2 FULL AUT REF K
  • [8] Carl Zeiss Vision, 2012, I PROF PLUS US MAN
  • [9] Catania LJ, 2013, OPTOM MGT MAR
  • [10] Clinical ocular wavefront analyzers
    Cervino, Alejandro
    Hosking, Sarah L.
    Montes-Mico, RoberL
    Bates, Keith
    [J]. JOURNAL OF REFRACTIVE SURGERY, 2007, 23 (06) : 603 - 616