Cargando…

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 w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tabernero, Juan, Otero, Carles, Pardhan, Shahina
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7414619/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32832229
http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/tvst.9.7.23
_version_ 1783569004283035648
author Tabernero, Juan
Otero, Carles
Pardhan, Shahina
author_facet Tabernero, Juan
Otero, Carles
Pardhan, Shahina
author_sort Tabernero, Juan
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7414619
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74146192020-08-21 A Comparison Between Refraction From an Adaptive Optics Visual Simulator and Clinical Refractions Tabernero, Juan Otero, Carles Pardhan, Shahina Transl Vis Sci Technol Article 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. The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 2020-06-22 /pmc/articles/PMC7414619/ /pubmed/32832229 http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/tvst.9.7.23 Text en Copyright 2020 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
spellingShingle Article
Tabernero, Juan
Otero, Carles
Pardhan, Shahina
A Comparison Between Refraction From an Adaptive Optics Visual Simulator and Clinical Refractions
title A Comparison Between Refraction From an Adaptive Optics Visual Simulator and Clinical Refractions
title_full A Comparison Between Refraction From an Adaptive Optics Visual Simulator and Clinical Refractions
title_fullStr A Comparison Between Refraction From an Adaptive Optics Visual Simulator and Clinical Refractions
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison Between Refraction From an Adaptive Optics Visual Simulator and Clinical Refractions
title_short A Comparison Between Refraction From an Adaptive Optics Visual Simulator and Clinical Refractions
title_sort comparison between refraction from an adaptive optics visual simulator and clinical refractions
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7414619/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32832229
http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/tvst.9.7.23
work_keys_str_mv AT tabernerojuan acomparisonbetweenrefractionfromanadaptiveopticsvisualsimulatorandclinicalrefractions
AT oterocarles acomparisonbetweenrefractionfromanadaptiveopticsvisualsimulatorandclinicalrefractions
AT pardhanshahina acomparisonbetweenrefractionfromanadaptiveopticsvisualsimulatorandclinicalrefractions
AT tabernerojuan comparisonbetweenrefractionfromanadaptiveopticsvisualsimulatorandclinicalrefractions
AT oterocarles comparisonbetweenrefractionfromanadaptiveopticsvisualsimulatorandclinicalrefractions
AT pardhanshahina comparisonbetweenrefractionfromanadaptiveopticsvisualsimulatorandclinicalrefractions