Wavefront analyzers induce instrument myopia

Alejandro Cerviño, Sarah L. Hosking, Gurjeet K. Rai, Shezhad A. Naroo, Bernard Gilmartin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy of three wavefront analyzers versus a validated binocular open-view autorefractor in determining refractive error in non-cycloplegic eyes. METHODS: Eighty eyes were examined using the SRW-5000 open-view infrared autorefractor and, in randomized sequence, three wavefront analyzers: 1) OPD-Scan (NIDEK, Gamagori, Japan), 2) WASCA (Zeiss/Meditec, Jena, Germany), and 3) Allegretto (WaveLight Laser Technologies AG, Erlangen, Germany). Subjects were healthy adults (19 men and 21 women; mean age: 20.8 +/- 2.5 years). Refractive errors ranged from +1.5 to -9.75 diopters (D) (mean: +1.83 +/- 2.74 D) with up to 1.75 D cylinder (mean: 0.58 +/- 0.53 D). Three readings were collected per instrument by one examiner without anticholinergic agents. Refraction values were decomposed into vector components for analysis, resulting in mean spherical equivalent refraction (M) and J0 and J45 being vectors of cylindrical power at 0 degrees and 45 degrees, respectively. RESULTS: Positive correlation was observed between wavefront analyzers and the SRW-5000 for spherical equivalent refraction (OPD-Scan, r=0.959, P<.001; WASCA, r=0.981, P<.001; Allegretto, r=0.942, P<.001). Mean differences and limits of agreement showed more negative spherical equivalent refraction with wavefront analyzers (OPD-Scan, 0.406 +/- 0.768 D [range: 0.235 to 0.580 D] [P<.001]; WASCA, 0.511 +/- 0.550 D [range: 0.390 to 0.634 D] [P<.001]; and Allegretto, 0.434 +/- 0.904 D [range: 0.233 to 0.635 D] [P<.001]). A second analysis eliminating outliers showed the same trend but lower differences: OPD-Scan (n=75), 0.24 +/- 0.41 D (range: 0.15 to 0.34 D) (P<.001); WASCA (n=78), 0.46 +/- 0.47 D (range: 0.36 to 0.57 D) (P<.001); and Allegretto (n=77), 0.30 +/- 0.62 D (range: 0.16 to 0.44 D) (P<.001). No statistically significant differences were noted for J0 and J45. CONCLUSIONS: Wavefront analyzer refraction resulted in 0.30 D more myopia compared to SRW-5000 refraction in eyes without cycloplegia. This is the result of the accommodation excess attributable to instrument myopia. For the relatively low degrees of astigmatism in this study (<2.0 D), good agreement was noted between wavefront analyzers and the SRW-5000. Copyright (C) 2006 SLACK Incorporated
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)795-803
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Refractive Surgery
Volume22
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2006

Fingerprint

Myopia
Refractive Errors
Germany
Astigmatism
Cholinergic Antagonists
Reading
Healthy Volunteers
Japan
Lasers
Technology

Keywords

  • accuracy
  • wavefront analyzers
  • binocular open-view autorefractor
  • refractive error
  • non-cycloplegic eyes
  • spherical equivalent refraction
  • myopia
  • cycloplegia
  • astigmatism

Cite this

Cerviño, Alejandro ; Hosking, Sarah L. ; Rai, Gurjeet K. ; Naroo, Shezhad A. ; Gilmartin, Bernard. / Wavefront analyzers induce instrument myopia. In: Journal of Refractive Surgery . 2006 ; Vol. 22, No. 8. pp. 795-803.
@article{18bacfa79ecc401589583c13b58d2f1e,
title = "Wavefront analyzers induce instrument myopia",
abstract = "PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy of three wavefront analyzers versus a validated binocular open-view autorefractor in determining refractive error in non-cycloplegic eyes. METHODS: Eighty eyes were examined using the SRW-5000 open-view infrared autorefractor and, in randomized sequence, three wavefront analyzers: 1) OPD-Scan (NIDEK, Gamagori, Japan), 2) WASCA (Zeiss/Meditec, Jena, Germany), and 3) Allegretto (WaveLight Laser Technologies AG, Erlangen, Germany). Subjects were healthy adults (19 men and 21 women; mean age: 20.8 +/- 2.5 years). Refractive errors ranged from +1.5 to -9.75 diopters (D) (mean: +1.83 +/- 2.74 D) with up to 1.75 D cylinder (mean: 0.58 +/- 0.53 D). Three readings were collected per instrument by one examiner without anticholinergic agents. Refraction values were decomposed into vector components for analysis, resulting in mean spherical equivalent refraction (M) and J0 and J45 being vectors of cylindrical power at 0 degrees and 45 degrees, respectively. RESULTS: Positive correlation was observed between wavefront analyzers and the SRW-5000 for spherical equivalent refraction (OPD-Scan, r=0.959, P<.001; WASCA, r=0.981, P<.001; Allegretto, r=0.942, P<.001). Mean differences and limits of agreement showed more negative spherical equivalent refraction with wavefront analyzers (OPD-Scan, 0.406 +/- 0.768 D [range: 0.235 to 0.580 D] [P<.001]; WASCA, 0.511 +/- 0.550 D [range: 0.390 to 0.634 D] [P<.001]; and Allegretto, 0.434 +/- 0.904 D [range: 0.233 to 0.635 D] [P<.001]). A second analysis eliminating outliers showed the same trend but lower differences: OPD-Scan (n=75), 0.24 +/- 0.41 D (range: 0.15 to 0.34 D) (P<.001); WASCA (n=78), 0.46 +/- 0.47 D (range: 0.36 to 0.57 D) (P<.001); and Allegretto (n=77), 0.30 +/- 0.62 D (range: 0.16 to 0.44 D) (P<.001). No statistically significant differences were noted for J0 and J45. CONCLUSIONS: Wavefront analyzer refraction resulted in 0.30 D more myopia compared to SRW-5000 refraction in eyes without cycloplegia. This is the result of the accommodation excess attributable to instrument myopia. For the relatively low degrees of astigmatism in this study (<2.0 D), good agreement was noted between wavefront analyzers and the SRW-5000. Copyright (C) 2006 SLACK Incorporated",
keywords = "accuracy, wavefront analyzers, binocular open-view autorefractor, refractive error, non-cycloplegic eyes, spherical equivalent refraction, myopia, cycloplegia, astigmatism",
author = "Alejandro Cervi{\~n}o and Hosking, {Sarah L.} and Rai, {Gurjeet K.} and Naroo, {Shezhad A.} and Bernard Gilmartin",
year = "2006",
month = "10",
doi = "10.3928/1081-597X-20061001-10",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "795--803",
journal = "Journal of Refractive Surgery",
issn = "1081-597X",
publisher = "Slack Incorporated",
number = "8",

}

Wavefront analyzers induce instrument myopia. / Cerviño, Alejandro; Hosking, Sarah L.; Rai, Gurjeet K.; Naroo, Shezhad A.; Gilmartin, Bernard.

In: Journal of Refractive Surgery , Vol. 22, No. 8, 10.2006, p. 795-803.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Wavefront analyzers induce instrument myopia

AU - Cerviño, Alejandro

AU - Hosking, Sarah L.

AU - Rai, Gurjeet K.

AU - Naroo, Shezhad A.

AU - Gilmartin, Bernard

PY - 2006/10

Y1 - 2006/10

N2 - PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy of three wavefront analyzers versus a validated binocular open-view autorefractor in determining refractive error in non-cycloplegic eyes. METHODS: Eighty eyes were examined using the SRW-5000 open-view infrared autorefractor and, in randomized sequence, three wavefront analyzers: 1) OPD-Scan (NIDEK, Gamagori, Japan), 2) WASCA (Zeiss/Meditec, Jena, Germany), and 3) Allegretto (WaveLight Laser Technologies AG, Erlangen, Germany). Subjects were healthy adults (19 men and 21 women; mean age: 20.8 +/- 2.5 years). Refractive errors ranged from +1.5 to -9.75 diopters (D) (mean: +1.83 +/- 2.74 D) with up to 1.75 D cylinder (mean: 0.58 +/- 0.53 D). Three readings were collected per instrument by one examiner without anticholinergic agents. Refraction values were decomposed into vector components for analysis, resulting in mean spherical equivalent refraction (M) and J0 and J45 being vectors of cylindrical power at 0 degrees and 45 degrees, respectively. RESULTS: Positive correlation was observed between wavefront analyzers and the SRW-5000 for spherical equivalent refraction (OPD-Scan, r=0.959, P<.001; WASCA, r=0.981, P<.001; Allegretto, r=0.942, P<.001). Mean differences and limits of agreement showed more negative spherical equivalent refraction with wavefront analyzers (OPD-Scan, 0.406 +/- 0.768 D [range: 0.235 to 0.580 D] [P<.001]; WASCA, 0.511 +/- 0.550 D [range: 0.390 to 0.634 D] [P<.001]; and Allegretto, 0.434 +/- 0.904 D [range: 0.233 to 0.635 D] [P<.001]). A second analysis eliminating outliers showed the same trend but lower differences: OPD-Scan (n=75), 0.24 +/- 0.41 D (range: 0.15 to 0.34 D) (P<.001); WASCA (n=78), 0.46 +/- 0.47 D (range: 0.36 to 0.57 D) (P<.001); and Allegretto (n=77), 0.30 +/- 0.62 D (range: 0.16 to 0.44 D) (P<.001). No statistically significant differences were noted for J0 and J45. CONCLUSIONS: Wavefront analyzer refraction resulted in 0.30 D more myopia compared to SRW-5000 refraction in eyes without cycloplegia. This is the result of the accommodation excess attributable to instrument myopia. For the relatively low degrees of astigmatism in this study (<2.0 D), good agreement was noted between wavefront analyzers and the SRW-5000. Copyright (C) 2006 SLACK Incorporated

AB - PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy of three wavefront analyzers versus a validated binocular open-view autorefractor in determining refractive error in non-cycloplegic eyes. METHODS: Eighty eyes were examined using the SRW-5000 open-view infrared autorefractor and, in randomized sequence, three wavefront analyzers: 1) OPD-Scan (NIDEK, Gamagori, Japan), 2) WASCA (Zeiss/Meditec, Jena, Germany), and 3) Allegretto (WaveLight Laser Technologies AG, Erlangen, Germany). Subjects were healthy adults (19 men and 21 women; mean age: 20.8 +/- 2.5 years). Refractive errors ranged from +1.5 to -9.75 diopters (D) (mean: +1.83 +/- 2.74 D) with up to 1.75 D cylinder (mean: 0.58 +/- 0.53 D). Three readings were collected per instrument by one examiner without anticholinergic agents. Refraction values were decomposed into vector components for analysis, resulting in mean spherical equivalent refraction (M) and J0 and J45 being vectors of cylindrical power at 0 degrees and 45 degrees, respectively. RESULTS: Positive correlation was observed between wavefront analyzers and the SRW-5000 for spherical equivalent refraction (OPD-Scan, r=0.959, P<.001; WASCA, r=0.981, P<.001; Allegretto, r=0.942, P<.001). Mean differences and limits of agreement showed more negative spherical equivalent refraction with wavefront analyzers (OPD-Scan, 0.406 +/- 0.768 D [range: 0.235 to 0.580 D] [P<.001]; WASCA, 0.511 +/- 0.550 D [range: 0.390 to 0.634 D] [P<.001]; and Allegretto, 0.434 +/- 0.904 D [range: 0.233 to 0.635 D] [P<.001]). A second analysis eliminating outliers showed the same trend but lower differences: OPD-Scan (n=75), 0.24 +/- 0.41 D (range: 0.15 to 0.34 D) (P<.001); WASCA (n=78), 0.46 +/- 0.47 D (range: 0.36 to 0.57 D) (P<.001); and Allegretto (n=77), 0.30 +/- 0.62 D (range: 0.16 to 0.44 D) (P<.001). No statistically significant differences were noted for J0 and J45. CONCLUSIONS: Wavefront analyzer refraction resulted in 0.30 D more myopia compared to SRW-5000 refraction in eyes without cycloplegia. This is the result of the accommodation excess attributable to instrument myopia. For the relatively low degrees of astigmatism in this study (<2.0 D), good agreement was noted between wavefront analyzers and the SRW-5000. Copyright (C) 2006 SLACK Incorporated

KW - accuracy

KW - wavefront analyzers

KW - binocular open-view autorefractor

KW - refractive error

KW - non-cycloplegic eyes

KW - spherical equivalent refraction

KW - myopia

KW - cycloplegia

KW - astigmatism

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33750117795&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - https://www.healio.com/ophthalmology/journals/jrs/2006-10-22-8/%7bc1bde9b9-bf4b-495f-87dc-ff50dcf742f1%7d/wavefront-analyzers-induce-instrument-myopia

U2 - 10.3928/1081-597X-20061001-10

DO - 10.3928/1081-597X-20061001-10

M3 - Article

C2 - 17061717

VL - 22

SP - 795

EP - 803

JO - Journal of Refractive Surgery

JF - Journal of Refractive Surgery

SN - 1081-597X

IS - 8

ER -