The evaluation of two new computer-based tests for measurement of Aniseikonia

Meridional ocular magnification after cataract surgery with toric and non-toric intraocular lenses

Background

Overall ocular magnification (OOM) and meridional ocular magnification (MOM) with consequent image distortions have been widely ignored in modern cataract surgery. The purpose of this study was to investigate OOM and MOM in a general situation with an astigmatic refracting surface.

Methods

From a large dataset containing biometric measurements (IOLMaster 700) of both eyes of 9734 patients prior to cataract surgery, the equivalent (P_IOLeq) and cylindric power (P_IOLcyl) were derived for the HofferQ, Haigis, and Castrop formulae for emmetropia. Based on the pseudophakic eye model, OOM and MOM were extracted using 4 × 4 matrix algebra for the corrected eye (with P_IOLeq/P_IOLcyl (scenario 1) or with P_IOLeq and spectacle correction of the residual refractive cylinder (scenario 2) or with P_IOLeq remaining the residual uncorrected refractive cylinder (blurry image) (scenario 3)). In each case, the relative image distortion of MOM/OOM was calculated in %.

Results

On average, P_IOLeq/P_IOLcyl was 20.73 ± 4.50 dpt/1.39 ± 1.09 dpt for HofferQ, 20.75 ± 4.23 dpt/1.29 ± 1.01 dpt for Haigis, and 20.63 ± 4.31 dpt/1.26 ± 0.98 dpt for Castrop formulae. Cylindric refraction for scenario 2 was 0.91 ± 0.70 dpt, 0.89 ± 0.69 dpt, and 0.89 ± 0.69 dpt, respectively. OOM/MOM (× 1000) was 16.56 ± 1.20/0.08 ± 0.07, 16.56 ± 1.20/0.18 ± 0.14, and 16.56 ± 1.20/0.08 ± 0.07 mm/mrad with HofferQ; 16.64 ± 1.16/0.07 ± 0.06, 16.64 ± 1.16/0.18 ± 0.14, and 16.64 ± 1.16/0.07 ± 0.06 mm/mrad with Haigis; and 16.72 ± 1.18/0.07 ± 0.05, 16.72 ± 1.18/0.18 ± 0.14, and 16.72 ± 1.18/0.07 ± 0.05 mm/mrad with Castrop formulae. Mean/95% quantile relative image distortion was 0.49/1.23%, 0.41/1.05%, and 0.40/0.98% for scenarios 1 and 3 and 1.09/2.71%, 1.07/2.66%, and 1.06/2.64% for scenario 2 with HofferQ, Haigis, and Castrop formulae.

Conclusion

Matrix representation of the pseudophakic eye allows for a simple and straightforward prediction of OOM and MOM of the pseudophakic eye after cataract surgery. OOM and MOM could be used for estimating monocular image distortions, or differences in overall or meridional magnifications between eyes.

Prediction of ocular magnification and aniseikonia after cataract surgery

BACKGROUND

Ocular magnification and aniseikonia after cataract surgery has been widely ignored in modern cataract surgery. The purpose of this study was to analyse ocular magnification and inter-individual differences in a normal cataract population with a focus on monovision.

METHODS

From a large dataset containing biometric measurements (IOLMaster 700) of both eyes of 9734 patients prior to cataract surgery, eyes were indexed randomly as primary (P) and secondary (S). Intraocular lens power (IOLP) was derived for the HofferQ, Haigis and Castrop formulae for emmetropia for P and emmetropia or myopia (-0.5 to -2 dpt) for S to simulate monovision. Based on the pseudophakic eye model in addition to these formulae, ocular magnification was extracted using matrix algebra (refraction and translation matrices and a system matrix describing the optical property of the entire spectacle corrected or uncorrected eye).

RESULTS

With emmetropia for P and S the IOLP differences (S-P) showed a standard deviation of 0.162/0.156/0.157 dpt and ocular magnification differences yielded a standard deviation of 0.0414/0.0405/0.0408 mm/mrad for the HofferQ/Haigis/Castrop setting. Simulating monovision, the myopic eye (S) showed a systematically smaller mean absolute spectacle corrected ocular magnification than the emmetropic eye (-0.0351/-0.0340/-0.0336, respectively, relative magnification around 2%). If myopia in the S eye remains uncorrected, the reduction of ocular magnification is much smaller (around 0.2-0.3%).

CONCLUSION

Vergence formulae for IOLP calculation sometimes implicitly define a pseudophakic eye model which can be directly used to predict ocular magnification after cataract surgery. Despite a strong similarity of both eyes, ocular magnification does not fully match between eyes and the prediction of ocular magnification and aniseikonia might be relevant to avoid eikonic problems in the pseudophakic eye.

Measuring aniseikonia tolerance range for stereoacuity - a tool for the refractive surgeon

Objective

No method exists to measure aniseikonia tolerance in stereoacuity. The brain can compensate for 2%–3% aniseikonia (i.e. 2–3 dioptres of anisometropia) without impairing stereoacuity; however, a substantial proportion of anisometropic patients experience problems caused by disruptions of sensory fusion due to surgically induced aniseikonia. We hypothesized that individual differences in tolerance to aniseikonia exist and sought to develop a method to measure aniseikonia tolerance.

Methods

A total of 21 eye‐healthy phakic individuals older than 50 years of age and 11 patients awaiting clear lens extraction were included. Patients were tested with best corrected near and distance visual acuity, cover/uncover test, eye dominance test, stereoacuity threshold (TNO test), slit lamp examination and ocular coherence tomography. The stereoacuity threshold was determined with aniseikonia induced by different size lenses ranging from 1% to 9% magnification of both eyes in increments of 1%. The aniseikonia tolerance range (ATR) was defined as the percentage aniseikonia in which the stereoacuity threshold was maintained.

Results

We examined 32 patients with a median age of 65 (95% CI: 62–66 years), CDVA better than 6/7.5 (0.1 logMAR), and median near visual acuity better than 6/6 (0.0 logMAR). The median stereoacuity threshold was 60 arcsec (maximum 30, minimum 120). We observed large inter‐individual differences in ATR: 6/31 (19%) participants had an ATR of ≤1%, 1/31 (3%) had an ATR of 1‐5%, 7/31 (22%) had an ATR of 5‐10%, and 17/31 (54%) had an ATR of >10%.

Conclusion

We present a reliable method for measuring the amount of aniseikonia that a person can tolerate without impairing stereopsis. We report large inter‐individual differences in tolerance of aniseikonia.

Aniseikonia induced by cataract surgery and its effect on binocular vision

PURPOSE

This study measured aniseikonia before and after the first and second cataract surgeries in ametropic adults. The relationship of aniseikonia to anisometropia and its effect on stereopsis, ocular alignment, and clinical symptoms were determined.

METHODS

Seventeen patients scheduled to have bilateral cataract surgery with 2 diopters or more ametropia participated. Patients were evaluated before cataract surgery and 4 weeks (±1 week) after the first and second surgery. Visual acuity, refractive error, aniseikonia, stereopsis, ocular alignment, and visual symptoms were determined at each visit.

RESULTS

Aniseikonia increased after the first cataract surgery. The increase in aniseikonia occurred in concert with increased anisometropia and resulted in poorer stereopsis overall. Aniseikonia and anisometropia 1 month (±1 week) after the second cataract surgery returned to near baseline and were associated with better stereopsis. The amount of aniseikonia showed substantial variance and could not be predicted by the amount of induced anisometropia. Changes in ocular alignment were minimal. Statistically significant changes in patient symptoms between study visits were infrequent.

CONCLUSIONS

Aniseikonia induced by cataract surgery may not be a substantial problem for ametropic adults with normal binocular vision, at least in the short term.

Aniseikonia Tests: The Role of Viewing Mode, Response Bias, and Size-Color Illusions

PURPOSE

To identify the factors responsible for the poor validity of the most common aniseikonia tests, which involve size comparisons of red-green stimuli presented haploscopically.

METHODS

Aniseikonia was induced by afocal size lenses placed before one eye. Observers compared the sizes of semicircles presented haploscopically via color filters. The main factor under study was viewing mode (free viewing versus short presentations under central fixation). To eliminate response bias, a three-response format allowed observers to respond if the left, the right, or neither semicircle appeared larger than the other. To control decisional (criterion) bias, measurements were taken with the lens-magnified stimulus placed on the left and on the right. To control for size-color illusions, measurements were made with color filters in both arrangements before the eyes and under binocular vision (without color filters).

RESULTS

Free viewing resulted in a systematic underestimation of lens-induced aniseikonia that was absent with short presentations. Significant size-color illusions and decisional biases were found that would be mistaken for aniseikonia unless appropriate action is taken.

CONCLUSIONS

To improve their validity, aniseikonia tests should use short presentations and include control conditions to prevent contamination from decisional/response biases. If anaglyphs are used, presence of size-color illusions must be checked for.

TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE

We identified optimal conditions for administration of aniseikonia tests and appropriate action for differential diagnosis of aniseikonia in the presence of response biases or size-color illusions. Our study has clinical implications for aniseikonia management.

Evaluation of the aniseikonia inspector version 3 in school-aged children

PURPOSE

It has been suggested that children perceptually adapt to changes in retinal image size in the presence of anisometropia and therefore do not display clinically significant aniseikonia. However, given that early methods of eikonometry were not child-friendly, the prevalence of this condition in children is poorly understood. Retinal image size differences may be relevant in the discussion of amblyogenesis. The computer-based Aniseikonia Inspector Version 3 (AI3) uses a simple, forced-choice method and includes calibration for heterophoria. The present study is designed to evaluate AI3 by measuring background and induced aniseikonia in children aged 5 to 13 years.

METHODS

All subjects were present for a standard-of-care eye examination and had at least 20/40 best-corrected visual acuity and no history of strabismus or amblyopia. Trials of AI3 were performed in the vertical direction only, using the 12-point test, and two trials were recorded. Each subject was randomized to have a 4% size lens added to either the right eye or the left eye. Two trials were performed in this manner, followed by two more trials with the size lens over the alternate eye.

RESULTS

Eighteen children were enrolled; three subjects were not able to complete testing because of lack of attention or understanding. Results from each condition (background aniseikonia, induced aniseikonia OD, and induced aniseikonia OS) were averaged for each patient. With the 4% size lens over the OD, mean aniseikonia measured -3.83%. With the 4% size lens over the OS, mean aniseikonia measured 4.29%.

CONCLUSIONS

Most children were able to complete aniseikonia testing with AI3. Background aniseikonia was clinically insignificant (0.59%), and induced aniseikonia measurements were close to expected values using a 4% size lens. Aniseikonia Inspector Version 3 appears to be a useful means for measuring aniseikonia in a normal pediatric population. Further study in children with anisometropia is needed.

Partial correction of irregular aniseikonia secondary to retinal traction

PURPOSE

This case report presents the management of symptomatic retinally induced aniseikonia and a short review of the literature pertaining to two clinical tests used in the measurement and management of aniseikonia. The clinician is also provided a review of how to design eikonic lenses.

CASE REPORT

A 30-year-old white male presented with symptoms of perceived image size difference after scleral buckle repair for retinal detachment in the right eye. Three measures of aniseikonia resulted in markedly different values, but all indicated larger perceived left eye image. Stereopsis was measured before and after placing an afocal magnifying lens over the right eye. Stereopsis improved immediately upon placement of the afocal lens, with further improvement after 20 minutes, and stereopsis decreased upon removal. The patient reported improved visual comfort for near work with the afocal lens. Eikonic glasses were designed, and the patient reported improved comfort for near work that has remained for over 1 year of wear. Studies evaluating the validity and reliability of the New Aniseikonia Test and the Aniseikonia Inspector are reviewed. Most studies report that induced aniseikonia is underestimated. This case report illustrates that despite the problem with underestimation, these tests are useful clinical tools to identify whether aniseikonia exists and which eye has the larger perceived image. Results can be used as a starting point when making clinical decisions about managing aniseikonia. The Aniseikonia Inspector also assists in the design of eikonic glasses.

CONCLUSIONS

Even when aniseikonia is substantial, variable in magnitude, and irregular due to retinal disease, reducing the overall aniseikonia can improve binocularity and patient's comfort noticeably for the long term. The underestimation of induced aniseikonia in clinical tests does not preclude their use as a tool in the management of symptomatic aniseikonia.