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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |