1
|
Moreno JRA, Micó V, Albarrán Diego C. Subjective refraction using power vectors by updating a conventional phoropter with a Stokes lens for continuous astigmatic power generation. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2023; 43:1029-1039. [PMID: 37264763 DOI: 10.1111/opo.13181] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/26/2023] [Revised: 05/15/2023] [Accepted: 05/16/2023] [Indexed: 06/03/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To implement a pure power vector method for monocular subjective refraction using a regular phoropter with the only modification being the inclusion of a Stokes lens. The proposed methodology was tested with three different Stokes lenses, and the results were compared with conventional clinical refraction procedures. METHODS Power vector subjective refraction was performed by attaching a Stokes lens to the Risley prism holder. Stokes lenses allow for pure astigmatic compensation in the form of the J0 , J45 components while the spherical lenses in the phoropter allow determination of the spherical component in the form of M (spherical equivalent). The proposed routine is presented step-by-step using three Stokes lenses having different astigmatic powers. RESULTS Monocular subjective refraction was performed on 26 healthy subjects with a mean age of 44 ± 16 years, mean spherical equivalent of -0.56 D (range -5.50 to +2.38 D) and refractive astigmatism ≤1.50 D. No differences were found between the results obtained with the conventional technique versus the vector-based procedure for the spherical equivalent (p = 0.28) or astigmatic components (p = 0.34). In addition, visual acuity (VA) was equivalent through the refractions measured with the conventional and vector procedures (p = 0.12). Repeatability coefficients for J0 and J45 with the new vector methodology were <0.38 D. CONCLUSIONS The proposed routine could be helpful for cases where it is difficult to get a valid starting point for conventional refraction (e.g., irregular corneas and media opacities), for testing facilities with limited resources/equipment and/or for motivated clinicians who wish to know about alternative methods of refractive error determination.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Vicente Micó
- Departamento de Óptica y Optometría y Ciencias de la Visión, Universitat de València, Burjassot, Spain
| | - Cesar Albarrán Diego
- Departamento de Óptica y Optometría y Ciencias de la Visión, Universitat de València, Burjassot, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Kemchoknatee P, Sunlakaviset P, Khieokhoen N, Srisombut T, Tangon D. A Comparison of Autorefraction and Subjective Refraction in an Academic Optometry Clinic. Cureus 2023; 15:e37448. [PMID: 37182059 PMCID: PMC10174683 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.37448] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 04/11/2023] [Indexed: 05/16/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Refractive error is the most common cause of decreased visual acuity. Refractive measurement in adults consists of cycloplegic (objective) and manifest (subjective) refraction. Although the effectiveness of autorefraction is a crucial factor, there needs to be more information on its accuracy and precision on each autorefractor compared with subjective measurement in Thai patients. OBJECTIVE To compare the accuracy and precision of the two autorefractors' findings in Rajavithi Hospital, OptoChek Plus, and TOMEY Auto Refractometer RC-5000, with each other and with those of the subjective method. MATERIALS & METHODS An observational study was conducted at the Ophthalmology clinic in Rajavithi Hospital from March 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022. All subjects were tested using the two autorefractors (OptoChek Plus and TOMEY Auto Refractometer RC-5000) and subjective refraction. One eye per subject was included in the study. RESULTS Forty-eight patients (48 eyes) were enrolled in the study. The difference between spherical powers obtained by OptoChek and subjective refraction was not significantly different; however, there was a significant difference between those calculated by Tomey and the subjective method (p=0.77, p=0.04 respectively). The variations between cylindrical powers arrived at by the two autorefraction techniques and those calculated by the subjective method were significantly different (OptoChek and Tomey p-=0.01, p-value<0.001, respectively). In addition, 95% of the limit of agreement (95% of LOA) was low in the cylindrical measurement of each autorefractor compared with subjective refraction. (84.61%, 86.36%, respectively). No statistically significant difference between the spherical equivalent calculated by the two autorefractors and that of subjective refraction was observed in the present study (OptoChek: p-value=0.26 and Tomey: p-value=0.77). CONCLUSIONS There was a clinically significant difference between the cylindrical power calculated by the two autorefractors and those obtained from subjective refraction. Patients with high astigmatism should be monitored closely when measured by autorefractors, as there can be a slightly lower agreement between objective and subjective refraction.
Collapse
|
4
|
Kalaitzidis G, Pellegrini N, Nagy N, Vasileiou E, Ehrhardt H, Reppen A, Murphy OC, Moussa H, Filippatou A, Lambe J, DuVal A, Fioravante N, Kwakyi O, Nguyen J, Davis S, Douglas M, Ramirez A, Ecoff K, Valenzuela A, Reyes-Mantilla M, Hu C, Fitzgerald KC, Sotirchos ES, Saidha S, Calabresi PA. Effects of Myopia on Rates of Change in Optical Coherence Tomography Measured Retinal Layer Thicknesses in People with Multiple Sclerosis and Healthy Controls. Curr Eye Res 2023; 48:312-319. [PMID: 36440535 DOI: 10.1080/02713683.2022.2149806] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To quantify the associations of myopia with longitudinal changes in retinal layer thicknesses in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) and healthy controls (HC). METHODS A cohort of PwMS and HC with recorded refractive error (RE) prospectively scanned on Cirrus HD-OCT at the Johns Hopkins MS Center was assessed for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included OCT follow-up < 6 months, ocular comorbidities, incidental OCT pathologies, and inadequate scan quality. Eyes were classified as having high myopia (HM) (RE≤ -6 diopters), low myopia (LM) (RE> -6 and ≤ -3 diopters), or no myopia (NM) (RE> -3 and ≤ +2.75). Linear mixed-effects regression models were used in analyses. RESULTS A total of 213 PwMS (eyes: 67 HM, 98 LM, 207 NM) and 80 HC (eyes: 26 HM, 37 LM, 93 NM) were included. Baseline average ganglion cell/inner plexiform (GCIPL) and peri-papillary retinal nerve fiber layer (pRNFL) thicknesses were lower in MS HM compared with MS NM (diff: -3.2 µm, 95% CI: -5.5 to -0.8, p = 0.008 and -5.3 µm, 95% CI: -9.0 to -1.7, p = 0.004, respectively), and similarly in HC HM, as compared with HC NM. Baseline superior, inferior, and nasal pRNFL thicknesses were lower in HM compared with NM, while temporal pRNFL thickness was higher, both in MS and HC (MS: 7.1 µm, 95% CI: 2.7-11.6, p = 0.002; HC: 4.7 µm, 95% CI: -0.3 to 9.7, p = 0.07). No longitudinal differences in rates of GCIPL change were noted between HM and LM vs. NM, either in MS or HC. CONCLUSION Cross-sectional differences in average GCIPL and pRNFL thicknesses are commonly seen in people with HM as compared to reference normative values from people with NM and can lead to false attribution of pathology if RE is not taken into account. However, our study suggests that longitudinal changes in average GCIPL thickness in PwMS with myopia are similar in magnitude to PwMS with NM, and therefore are appropriate for monitoring disease-related pathology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Grigorios Kalaitzidis
- Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurological Infections, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Nicole Pellegrini
- Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurological Infections, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Natalia Nagy
- Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurological Infections, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Eleni Vasileiou
- Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurological Infections, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Henrik Ehrhardt
- Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurological Infections, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Abbey Reppen
- Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurological Infections, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Olwen C Murphy
- Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurological Infections, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Hussein Moussa
- Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurological Infections, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Angeliki Filippatou
- Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurological Infections, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Jeffrey Lambe
- Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurological Infections, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Anna DuVal
- Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurological Infections, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Nicholas Fioravante
- Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurological Infections, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Ohemaa Kwakyi
- Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurological Infections, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - James Nguyen
- Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurological Infections, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Simidele Davis
- Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurological Infections, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Morgan Douglas
- Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurological Infections, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Alexandra Ramirez
- Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurological Infections, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Katie Ecoff
- Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurological Infections, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Alyssandra Valenzuela
- Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurological Infections, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Maria Reyes-Mantilla
- Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurological Infections, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Chen Hu
- Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurological Infections, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Kathryn C Fitzgerald
- Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurological Infections, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Elias S Sotirchos
- Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurological Infections, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Shiv Saidha
- Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurological Infections, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Peter A Calabresi
- Department of Neurology, Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurological Infections, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
- Solomon H. Snyder Department of Neuroscience, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
- Department of Ophthalmology, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD,USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Venkataraman AP, Brautaset R, Domínguez-Vicent A. Effect of six different autorefractor designs on the precision and accuracy of refractive error measurement. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0278269. [PMID: 36441778 PMCID: PMC9704684 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278269] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/23/2022] [Accepted: 11/12/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the precision of objective refraction measurements with six different autorefractors that have different designs and measurement principles and to compare the objective refraction values with the subjective refraction. METHOD Objective refraction of 55 participants was measured using six autorefractors with different designs. The instrument features mainly varied in terms of measurement principles, inbuilt fogging, open or closed view, and handheld or stationary designs. Two repeated measurements of objective refraction were performed with each autorefractor. The objective refractions from the six autorefractors were compared with the standard subjective refraction. The repeatability limit and Bland-Altman were used to describe the precision and accuracy of each autorefractor, respectively. The analysis was done using the spherical component of the refraction and the power-vector components, spherical equivalent (M), and cylindrical vectors. RESULTS The repeatability of all autorefractors was within 1.00 and 0.35D for measuring the M and both cylindrical components, respectively. Inbuilt fogging was the common feature of the instruments that showed better repeatability. Compared to subjective refraction, the mean difference for sphere and M was below +0.50D, and it was close to zero for the cylindrical components. The instruments that had inbuilt fogging showed narrower limit of agreement. When combined with fogging, the open field refractors showed better precision and accuracy. CONCLUSIONS The inbuilt fogging is the most important feature followed by the open view in determining the precision and accuracy of the autorefractor values.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Abinaya Priya Venkataraman
- Division of Eye and Vision, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
- * E-mail:
| | - Rune Brautaset
- Division of Eye and Vision, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Alberto Domínguez-Vicent
- Division of Eye and Vision, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Sayed KM, Alsmman AH, Mostafa EM. Hand-Held Nidek versus Table-Mounted Huvitz Autorefractors and Their Agreement with Subjective Refraction in Adults. Clin Ophthalmol 2021; 15:1391-1401. [PMID: 33833497 PMCID: PMC8021254 DOI: 10.2147/opth.s263667] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2020] [Accepted: 03/17/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective To compare the agreement between commercially available table mounted and a hand-held autorefractors and their agreement with subjective refraction. The effect of different body position with the handheld autorefractometer was also evaluated. Methods A prospective study was performed on 253 healthy eyes. Refraction was acquired by a table-mounted Huvitz and hand-held Nidek autorefractometer, subjective refraction was acquired. Refractive errors were compared in terms of spherical equivalent (SE), cylinder power, and the J0 and J45. The level of agreement was evaluated by Bland–Altman plots. Results There was a significant difference in SE measurements between both devices and between them and subjective refraction (P=0.00). The Huvitz SE readings tended to be less myopic. However, limits of agreement (LOA) for SE were narrowest for Nidek sitting vs supine followed by Huvitz vs subjective SE refraction. The LOA for SE for Nidek sitting vs subjective SE were of wider range. For cylinder values, LOA were similar for all devices and positions and between them and subjective cylinder refraction. Conclusion Table mounted Huvitz and Nidek portable autorefractor cannot be used interchangeably in clinical practice except for estimation of the cylinder power. No difference in refraction between sitting and supine positions for portable Nidek autorefractor but with caution in cylinder axis. High agreement was achieved between subjective refraction and Huvitz readings but not with Nidek hand-held autorefractor. A highly reliable spectacle prescription could be done based on Huvitz readings. Both devices and positions could be used interchangeably in estimation of K-readings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Khulood Muhammad Sayed
- The Department of Ophthalmology, Sohag Faculty of Medicine, Sohag University, Sohag, Egypt
| | | | - Engy Mohammed Mostafa
- The Department of Ophthalmology, Sohag Faculty of Medicine, Sohag University, Sohag, Egypt
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Ohlendorf A, Leube A, Wahl S. Advancing Digital Workflows for Refractive Error Measurements. J Clin Med 2020; 9:jcm9072205. [PMID: 32664689 PMCID: PMC7408987 DOI: 10.3390/jcm9072205] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2020] [Revised: 07/06/2020] [Accepted: 07/10/2020] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Advancements in clinical measurement of refractive errors should lead to faster and more reliable measurements of such errors. The study investigated different aspects of advancements and the agreement of the spherocylindrical prescriptions obtained with an objective method of measurement ("Aberrometry" (AR)) and two methods of subjective refinements ("Wavefront Refraction" (WR) and "Standard Refraction" (StdR)). One hundred adults aged 20-78 years participated in the course of the study. Bland-Altman analysis of the right eye measurement of the spherocylindrical refractive error (M) identified mean differences (±95% limits of agreement) between the different types of measurements of +0.36 D (±0.76 D) for WR vs. AR (t-test: p < 0.001), +0.35 D (± 0.84 D) for StdR vs. AR (t-test: p < 0.001), and 0.0 D (± 0.65 D) for StdR vs. WR (t-test: p < 0.001). Monocular visual acuity was 0.0 logMAR in 96% of the tested eyes, when refractive errors were corrected with measurements from AR, indicating that only small differences between the different types of prescriptions are present.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arne Ohlendorf
- Institute for Ophthalmic Research, Center for Ophthalmology, Eberhard Karls University of Tuebingen, Elfriede-Aulhorn-Straße 7, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany; (A.O.); (A.L.)
- Technology & Innovation, Carl Zeiss Vision International GmbH, Turnstrasse 27, 73430 Aalen, Germany
| | - Alexander Leube
- Institute for Ophthalmic Research, Center for Ophthalmology, Eberhard Karls University of Tuebingen, Elfriede-Aulhorn-Straße 7, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany; (A.O.); (A.L.)
- Technology & Innovation, Carl Zeiss Vision International GmbH, Turnstrasse 27, 73430 Aalen, Germany
| | - Siegfried Wahl
- Institute for Ophthalmic Research, Center for Ophthalmology, Eberhard Karls University of Tuebingen, Elfriede-Aulhorn-Straße 7, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany; (A.O.); (A.L.)
- Technology & Innovation, Carl Zeiss Vision International GmbH, Turnstrasse 27, 73430 Aalen, Germany
- Correspondence:
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Comparison of Two Wavefront Autorefractors: Binocular Open-Field versus Monocular Closed-Field. J Ophthalmol 2020; 2020:8580471. [PMID: 31976087 PMCID: PMC6961603 DOI: 10.1155/2020/8580471] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/28/2019] [Revised: 11/14/2019] [Accepted: 12/17/2019] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
Abstract
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 (Sr) 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 (SrEYE REFRACT = 0.21 D, SrVX110 = 0.53 D) and J0 (SrEYE REFRACT = 0.12 D, SrVX110 = 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.
Collapse
|