잠시만 기다려 주세요. 로딩중입니다.

Accuracy of the Hand-held Wavefront Aberrometer in Measurement of Refractive Error

Korean Journal of Ophthalmology 2020년 34권 3호 p.227 ~ 234
한재용, 윤상철, Brown Nicolas Scott, 한승한, 한진우,
소속 상세정보
한재용 ( Han Jae-Yong ) - Yonsei University College of Medicine Department of Ophthalmology
윤상철 ( Yoon Sang-Chul ) - Yonsei University College of Medicine Department of Ophthalmology
 ( Brown Nicolas Scott ) - Ovtiz Corporation
한승한 ( Han Sueng-Han ) - Yonsei University College of Medicine Department of Ophthalmology
한진우 ( Han Jin-U ) - Yonsei University College of Medicine Department of Ophthalmology

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.

키워드

Corneal wavefront aberration; Mydriatics; Refractive errors; Refractometry

원문 및 링크아웃 정보

  

등재저널 정보