Comparison of refractive error measurements in adults with Z-View aberrometer, Humphrey autorefractor, and subjective refraction

An Innovative Virtual Reality System for Measuring Refractive Error

In this study, we aimed to validate a novel light field virtual reality (LFVR) system for estimating refractive errors in the human eye. Fifty participants with an average age of 22.12 ± 2.2 years (range 20-30 years) were enrolled. The present study compared spherical equivalent (SE) and focal line measurements (F1 and F2) obtained by the LFVR system with those obtained by established methods, including closed-field and open-field autorefractors, retinoscopy, and subjective refraction. The results showed substantial agreement between the LFVR system and the traditional methods, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for SE ranging from 82.7% to 86.7% (p < 0.01), and for F1 and F2 from 80.7% to 86.4% (p < 0.01). Intra-repeatability for F1 and F2 demonstrated strong agreement, with ICC values of 88.8% and 97.5%, respectively. These findings suggest that the LFVR system holds potential as a primary tool for refractive error measurement in optical care, offering high agreement and repeatability compared to conventional methods.

Method comparison and overview of refractive measurements in children: implications for myopia management

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the agreement between objective wavefront-based refraction and subjective refraction in myopic children. It also assessed the impact of cyclopentolate and refraction levels on the agreement.

METHODS

A total of 84 eyes of myopic children aged 6-13 years were included in the analysis. Non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic objective wavefront-based refraction were determined and cycloplegic subjective refraction was performed for each participant. The data were converted into spherical equivalent, J0 and J45, and Bland-Altman plots were used to analyse the agreement between methods.

RESULTS

Linear functions were used to determine the dependency between the central myopic refractive error and the difference between the method of refraction (=bias). The influence of central myopia was not clinically relevant when analysing the agreement between wavefront results with and without cyclopentolate (comparison 1). The bias for wavefront-based minus subjective spherical equivalent refraction (comparison 2) was ≤-0.50 D (95% limits of agreement -0.010 D to -1.00 D) for myopia of -4.55 D and higher when cycloplegia was used (p<0.05). When no cyclopentolate was used for the wavefront-based refraction (comparison 3), the bias of -0.50 D (95% limits of agreement -0.020 D to -0.97 D) was already reached at a myopic error of -2.97 D. Both astigmatic components showed no clinically relevant bias.

CONCLUSION

The spherical equivalent, measured without cycloplegic agents, led to more myopic measurements when wavefront-based refraction was used. The observed bias increased with the amount of myopic refractive error for comparisons 2 and 3, which needs to be considered when interpreting wavefront-refraction data.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05288335.

Accuracy and intrasession variability of noncycloplegic autorefraction of school-aged children and adolescents

The aims of the study were (1) to compare the accuracy and intrasession variability of noncycloplegic autorefraction (AR) obtained by a photorefractor and conventional and open-field autorefractors and (2) to evaluate the impact of accommodative and binocular vision anomalies on the accuracy of autorefraction. Twenty-nine children and adolescents aged 8-18 years were examined. All instruments gave more myopic results than subjective refraction (SR). Mean differences between the SR and the AR were +0.52/-0.25×96∘ for the photorefractor, +0.63/-0.31×93∘ for the conventional autorefractor, and +0.19/-0.26×94∘ for the open-field instrument. The photorefractor appeared to be the most repeatable. The impact of the examined vision anomalies on the accuracy of autorefraction was not statistically significant.

Impact of Viewing Conditions and Vision Anomalies on Accuracy and Dynamics of Noncycloplegic Autorefraction

SIGNIFICANCE

This study was conducted to analyze the influence of binocular vision and accommodation anomalies on refraction dynamics. Our results may help to design more accurate autorefractors and to better understand the difficulties in prescribing an optical correction or adaptation to a correction.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to verify whether viewing conditions (open- or closed-field) or vision anomalies, such as ocular surface diseases, accommodative dysfunctions, and binocular vision anomalies, influence (1) the differences between subjective refraction and autorefraction and (2) the characteristics of the short-term refractive state variation.

METHODS

The subjective refraction of 64 subjects aged 23 to 60 years was measured during a comprehensive optometric examination, and the Ocular Surface Disease Index questionnaire was collected. Twenty successive measurements of automated refraction of each eye were obtained using a conventional autorefractor Nidek ARK-510A and an open-field autorefractor Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001. Conventional notation of refractive error (sphere, cylinder, axis) was transformed to h-vectors, presented in scatterplots, and analyzed statistically.

RESULTS

The three-way analysis of variance tests showed that there is no influence of accommodation dysfunctions (P = .22 for ARK-510A), binocular vision anomalies (P = .97 for ARK-510A), and ocular surface diseases (P = .20 for ARK-510A) on differences between autorefraction and subjective refraction. The binocular vision anomalies affected the results from open-field autorefractor, whereas the accommodation impacted closed-field refraction measurements. Changes in short-term refractive state variation occurred in sphere power, indicating accommodative state changes; however, 30 subjects demonstrated at least one outlier and/or polymodality of refractive state distributions.

CONCLUSIONS

The study showed that the presence of accommodative dysfunctions or binocular vision anomalies might increase the range of short-term refractive state variation. The impact of vision anomalies differs between viewing conditions. The polymodal distribution of refractive state variation and the presence of outliers imply that automatic modes used typically in autorefractors with three to five readings may not accurately represent the refractive state of the eye.

The effect of refractive error on optokinetic nystagmus

Subjective refraction is the gold-standard for prescribing refractive correction, but its accuracy is limited by patient’s subjective judgment about their clarity of vision. We asked if an involuntary eye movement, optokinetic nystagmus (OKN), could serve as an objective measure of visual-clarity, specifically measuring the dependence of OKN—elicited by drifting spatial-frequency filtered noise—on mean spherical equivalent (MSE) refractive error. In Experiment 1 we quantified OKN score—a measure of consistency with stimulus-direction—for participants with different MSEs. Estimates of MSE based on OKN scores correlate well with estimates of MSE made using autorefraction (r = 0.878, p < 0.001, Bland–Altman analysis: mean difference of 0.00D (95% limits of agreement: − 0.85 to + 0.85D). In Experiment 2, we quantified the relationship between OKN gain (ratio of tracking eye-movement velocity to stimulus velocity) and MSEs (− 2.00, − 1.00, − 0.50, 0.00 and + 1.00D) induced with contact lenses for each participant. The mean difference between measures of MSE based on autorefraction or on OKN gain was + 0.05D (− 0.90 to + 1.01D), and the correlation of these measures across participants was r = 0.976, p < 0.001. Results indicate that MSE attenuates OKN gain so that OKN can be used as an objective proxy for patient response to select the best corrective lens.

A Comparison Between Refraction From an Adaptive Optics Visual Simulator and Clinical Refractions

Purpose

The Visual Adaptive Optics (VAO) is an adaptive optics visual simulator with an embedded Hartmann–Shack aberrometer that can give objective and subjective refraction measures. The aim of the present study was to compare the findings of the objective and subjective refractions from the VAO with a commercial autorefractometer (Topcon Corp., Tokyo, Japan) and a subjective refraction by an optometrist. The influence of age, refractive error type, and presence of ocular diseases was ascertained.

Methods

The refractive error was obtained in 469 participants using the four techniques mentioned. Data were analyzed with power vectors mean spherical equivalent, the vertical Jackson-Cross-Cylinder, and the oblique Jackson-Cross-Cylinder. Age, refractive error type (myopia, emmetropia, hyperopia) and presence of ocular diseases (yes, no) were included as covariates. Agreement was assessed using the 95% interval of agreement.

Results

The median spherical equivalent difference and the interval of agreement for all the participants with the VAO subjective, VAO objective, and autorefraction with the clinical subjective refraction were (+0.13, 1.80 diopters [D]), (+0.38, 1.80 D), and (−0.38, 2.10 D), respectively. When considering only healthy participants, the results were (+0.06, 1.70 D), (+0.38, 1.60 D) and (−0.25, 1.80 D), respectively. When considering only those participants with any ocular condition, the results with VAO subjective, VAO objective and autorefraction were (+0.13, 2.50 D), (+0.31, 2.70 D), and (−0.50, 4.80 D), respectively.

Conclusions

The VAO subjective refraction is more accurate than VAO objective refraction and autorefraction, regardless of refractive error, age, or the presence of ocular conditions. The presence of ocular conditions significantly deteriorates the accuracy of all refraction methods.

Translational Relevance

Reported clinical comparisons between different types of standard refraction methods and a new adaptive optics refraction instrument (VAO) are in good agreement and support the further development of this method to increase refraction accuracy and to refract quicker than standard procedures.

Comparison of Two Wavefront Autorefractors: Binocular Open-Field versus Monocular Closed-Field

Purpose

To evaluate the agreement and repeatability between a new commercially available binocular open-field wavefront autorefractor, as part of the Eye Refract system, and a monocular closed-field wavefront autorefractor (VX110).

Methods

A cross-sectional, randomized, and single-masked study was performed. Ninety-nine eyes of 99 healthy participants (37.22 ± 18.04 years, range 8 to 69 years) were randomly analyzed. Three measurements with the Eye Refract and the VX110 were taken on three different days, under noncycloplegic conditions. Mean spherical equivalent (MSE), cylindrical vectors (J0 and J45), and binocular corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA) were compared between both autorefractors. An intersession repeatability analysis was done considering the values of repeatability (S_r) and its 95% limit (r).

Results

The VX110 showed more negative values (P < 0.001) in terms of MSE in comparison with the Eye Refract (0.20 D). Regarding cylindrical vectors, J45 showed statistically significant differences (P=0.001) between both wavefront autorefractors, but they were not clinically relevant (<0.05 D). In BCDVA, there were no statistically significant differences (P=0.667) between both wavefront autorefractors. Additionally, the Eye Refract was more repeatable than the VX110 in terms of both MSE (S_{rEYE REFRACT} = 0.21 D, S_rVX110 = 0.53 D) and J0 (S_{rEYE REFRACT} = 0.12 D, S_rVX110 = 0.35 D).

Conclusions

The Eye Refract provided enough accuracy and reliability to estimate refractive errors in different age groups, achieving better results than the VX110. Therefore, the Eye Refract proved to be a useful autorefractor to be incorporated into clinical practice.

Comparison of refractive error measurements by three different models of autorefractors and subjective refraction in young adults

In this paper, the accuracy of noncycloplegic refractive error measurements performed by three autorefractors, Nidek ARK-510A, Visionix L80 Wave+, and Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001, compared with subjective refraction (SR) in young adults is analyzed using statistical methods. The analysis is carried out in terms of spherical equivalent (SE), astigmatism, and two Jackson crossed-cylinder vectors. Fifty-one subjects aged 19-23 were examined. The differences between objective refraction (OR) measured by autorefractors are not statistically significant in either SE or cylindrical components. However, in comparison with subjective refraction, the best agreement in SE was provided by K 5001. For all instruments, differences in SE between OR and SR are statistically significant.

Clinical evaluation of an automated subjective refraction method implemented in a computer-controlled motorized phoropter

PURPOSE

To investigate a new algorithm to perform an automated non-cycloplegic refraction in adults.

METHODS

Fifty healthy subjects were measured twice (test-retest) with the new automated subjective refraction method and with the conventional clinician subjective refraction procedure. Objective refraction was also measured with the Grand Seiko WAM-5500 autorefractor. The new automated method was inspired on the root finding bisection algorithm and on the Euclidean distances in the power vector domain. The algorithm was implemented in a computer that was synchronized with a customized motorized phoropter. Repeatability was mainly assessed with the within-subject standard deviation (Sw) and accuracy was mainly assessed with the limits of agreement.

RESULTS

The within-subject standard deviations of the power vector components (M, J0, J45) obtained for the right eye are (±0.13, ±0.04, ±0.05)D and (±0.17, ±0.03, ±0.07)D, respectively, for the clinical and the automated subjective refraction methods. The limits of agreement (with the clinical method) for the automated and the objective methods are, respectively (±0.56, ±0.18, ±0.31)D and (±0.77, ±0.15, ±0.18)D. Similar results are obtained for the left eye.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed automated method is repeatable and more accurate than objective techniques in healthy adults. However, it is not accurate enough to replace the clinical subjective refraction yet and it should be tested in a wider population in terms of age, refraction and different ocular conditions. Despite these important limitations, this method has been shown to be a potentially valuable method to improve the access to primary eye care services in developing countries.

Spherical subjective refraction with a novel 3D virtual reality based system

PURPOSE

To conduct a clinical validation of a virtual reality-based experimental system that is able to assess the spherical subjective refraction simplifying the methodology of ocular refraction.

METHODS

For the agreement assessment, spherical refraction measurements were obtained from 104 eyes of 52 subjects using three different methods: subjectively with the experimental prototype (Subj.E) and the classical subjective refraction (Subj.C); and objectively with the WAM-5500 autorefractor (WAM). To evaluate precision (intra- and inter-observer variability) of each refractive tool independently, 26 eyes were measured in four occasions.

RESULTS

With regard to agreement, the mean difference (±SD) for the spherical equivalent (M) between the new experimental subjective method (Subj.E) and the classical subjective refraction (Subj.C) was -0.034D (±0.454D). The corresponding 95% Limits of Agreement (LoA) were (-0.856D, 0.924D). In relation to precision, intra-observer mean difference for the M component was 0.034±0.195D for the Subj.C, 0.015±0.177D for the WAM and 0.072±0.197D for the Subj.E. Inter-observer variability showed worse precision values, although still clinically valid (below 0.25D) in all instruments.

CONCLUSIONS

The spherical equivalent obtained with the new experimental system was precise and in good agreement with the classical subjective routine. The algorithm implemented in this new system and its optical configuration has been shown to be a first valid step for spherical error correction in a semiautomated way.

Autorefraction, Retinoscopy, Javal's Rule, and Grosvenor's Modified Javal's Rule: The Best Predictor of Refractive Astigmatism

The aim of the study was to determine the level of agreement between Javal's rule, autorefraction, retinoscopy, and refractive astigmatism and to determine which technique is the most suitable substitute when subjective refraction is not applicable using a clinical sample. A total of 36 subjects, 14 males and 22 females, were involved in this study. The intraclass correlation coefficients between subjective refraction, autorefraction, and retinoscopy were 0.895 and 0.989, respectively, for the spherical equivalent. The Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement between subjective refraction and autorefraction; subjective refraction and retinoscopy; and autorefraction and retinoscopy were −2.84 to 3.58, −0.88 to 1.12, and −3.01 to 3.53, respectively, for the spherical equivalent. The intraclass correlation coefficients between spectacle total astigmatism and the following techniques were as follows: retinoscopy (0.85); autorefraction (0.92); Javal's rule (0.82); and Grosvenor et al. version (0.85). The Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement between subjective refraction and autorefraction; subjective refraction and retinoscopy; subjective refraction and Javal's rule; and subjective refraction and Grosvenor et al. version were −0.87 to 1.25, −1.49 to 1.99, −0.73 to 1.93, and −0.89 to 1.7, respectively, for the total astigmatism. The study showed that autorefraction and Javal's rule may provide a starting point for subjective refraction cylinder power determination but only retinoscopy may satisfactorily replace subjective refraction total astigmatism when subjective refraction is not applicable.

Evaluation of patient visual comfort and repeatability of refractive values in non-presbyopic healthy eyes

AIM

To evaluate the intra-operator repeatability in healthy subjects using the WAM-5500 auto-kerato/refractometer and the iTrace aberrometer, to compare the refractive values and the subjective refraction obtained with both devices and to determine which of these three spherocylindrical corrections allows the subject to achieve the best visual comfort.

METHODS

Forty-two non-presbyopic healthy eyes of 42 subjects were enrolled in this prospective study. Refractive values were compared, evaluating the repeatability, the relationship between the methods and the best visual comfort obtained.

RESULTS

Sphere, cylinder and axis results showed good intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC); the highest ICC was obtained using the spherical refraction with the autorefractometer and the aberrometer, achieving levels of 0.999 and 0.998, respectively. The power vector (PV) was calculated for each refraction method, and the results indicated that there were no statistically significant differences between them (P>0.05). Direct comparison of PV measurements using the three methods showed that aberrometer refraction gave the highest values, followed by the subjective values; the autorefractometer gave the lowest values. The subjective method correction was most frequently chosen as the first selection. Equal values were found for the autorefractometer and the aberrometer as the second selection.

CONCLUSION

The iTrace aberrometer and the WAM-5500 auto-kerato/refractometer showed high levels of repeatability in healthy eyes. Refractive corrections with the aberrometer, the autorefractometer and subjective methods presented similar results, but spherocylindrical subjective correction was the most frequently selected option. These technologies can be used as complements in refractive evaluation, but they should not replace subjective refraction.

A comparison of a traditional and wavefront autorefraction

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.

Toward zero effective phacoemulsification time using femtosecond laser pretreatment

OBJECTIVE

To compare effective phacoemulsification time after femtosecond laser pretreatment with conventional phacoemulsification and the associated effect on visual outcomes and endothelial cell loss.

DESIGN

Prospective, consecutive, single-surgeon case-control study.

CONTROLS

Controls underwent phacoemulsification cataract extraction plus insertion of an intraocular lens (IOL). Cases underwent pretreatment with the femtosecond laser followed by phacoemulsification cataract extraction and IOL insertion.

METHODS

Two hundred one eyes underwent cataract surgery between April 2012 and July 2012. Data collected included patient demographics, preoperative characteristics, femtosecond lens fragmentation method, effective phacoemulsification time (EPT), intraoperative complications, and postoperative outcomes.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Effective phacoemulsification time, intraoperative complications, corneal endothelial cell loss, as well as postoperative best-corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure, and refractive outcomes.

RESULTS

Patient demographics were similar between groups. There was no difference between baseline cataract grades (2.59 ± 0.71 vs. 2.52 ± 0.72, not significant). One hundred percent of cases pretreated with the femtosecond laser had complete capsulotomy. Mean EPT was reduced by 83.6% in the femtosecond pretreatment group (P<0.0001) when compared with controls, with 30% having 0 EPT (P<0.0001). Effective phacoemulsification time was reduced 28.6% within the femtosecond group using improved lens fragmentation algorithms, and a further 72.8% reduction was achieved with a 20-gauge phacoemulsification tip. Overall, there was a 96.2% reduction in EPT between controls and the optimized femtosecond pretreatment group. This was associated with a 36.1% reduction in endothelial cell loss in the femtosecond group. Visual and refractive outcomes were similar to those of conventional cataract surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Femtosecond laser pretreatment results in a significant reduction in effective phacoemulsification time, including the possibility of 0 EPT. Further reductions may be achieved using optimization of lens fragmentation patterns and surgical technique.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.