June 2015
Volume 56, Issue 7
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2015
Halo size and subjective complaints of dysphotopsia in a normal population
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Maana Aujla
    School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom
  • James Stuart Wolffsohn
    School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom
  • Amy Louise Sheppard
    School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Maana Aujla, None; James Wolffsohn, None; Amy Sheppard, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2015, Vol.56, 4314. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Maana Aujla, James Stuart Wolffsohn, Amy Louise Sheppard, ; Halo size and subjective complaints of dysphotopsia in a normal population. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2015;56(7 ):4314.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract
 
Purpose
 

Dysphotopsia is common with multifocal intraocular lenses (MIOLs), with complaints from as many as 45% of those implanted. Some find it severely problematic in day-to-day tasks, such as night driving. Several objective and subjective techniques are available to investigate dysphotopsia, but the relationship between objective and subjective measures is unclear and it is difficult to predict pre-operatively those who might be worst affected subjectively. The aim of this prospective study was to investigate the relationship between objective measures and subjective complaints of dysphotopsia. The normal range of subjective/objective grade (the glare effect ratio) will be determined.

 
Methods
 

Measurements were taken both binocularly and monocularly from 100 healthy participants (mean age: 22 ± 3.21 years; range 18 to 33 years). A bespoke halometer device with glare source was used to quantify the extent of the glare area in 8 meridians. The commercially available C-Quant objectively assessed the amount of straylight falling on the retina using the compensation comparison method. Subjective grading of glare was performed using simulated images from the Photographic Images of Photic Phenomena plates.

 
Results
 

Monocular glare areas (median: 4.25 cm2; range 1.97 to 19.61 cm2) were significantly larger than the binocular glare areas (median: 3.24 cm2; range 1.64 to 8.26 cm2) with the halometer (P < 0.001). There was no relationship between halometer glare area and subjective complaints (rs = -0.048, rs2 = 0.002, P = 0.635); C-Quant and subjective complaints (rs = 0.109, rs2 = 0.012, P = 0.279); halometer and C-Quant (rs = 0.121, rs2 = 0.015, P = 0.231). The normal ranges for the glare effect ratio were 0 - 2.47 (median: 0.87) for halometry, and 0 - 9.41 (median: 3.23) for C-Quant.

 
Conclusions
 

Binocular summation was evident with binocular halos being smaller than monocular halos, suggesting halometry should be performed binocularly. The lack of relationship between subjective and objective measures highlights the difficulty of predicting the potential subjective complaints a patient may experience from an objective measure alone. The normal range of the glare effect ratio could be used for comparison purposes pre- and post- refractive surgery; individuals with the highest ratios may be less suitable for refractive surgery procedures that may induce glare.

 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×