Purchase this article with an account.
Gonzalo Carracedo, Laura Batres, MAria Serramito, Anahi Gonzalez, Carlos Carpena-Torres; Efficacy and repeatability of aberrometry-based binocular refraction compared with subjective refraction.. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2018;59(9):4767.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
The aim of this study was to evaluate the repeatability of a new system of binocular refraction, mainly based on ocular aberrometry, (BROA) and to compare its efficacy with the traditional subjective refraction (SR) as Gold Standard.
A prospective, double-blind and transversal study was performed. It was recruited 99 subjects (35 men and 64 women) with a mean age of 37.22±18.04 years old (age range: 7 to 70 years). Refractive surgery or irregular cornea were considered as exclusion criteria. SR was performed by three different optometrists and BROA by another optometrist (three times) in three different days, randomly. Neither patients nor optometrist knew the refraction achieved by the others. For statistical analysis, the refraction was converted to vectorial parameters (M, J0 and J45). Then, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), subjective vision evaluated with visual analog scale (VAS), refraction spent time and M, J0 and J45 were analyzed. Intraclass correlation (ICC) was used to study the refraction methods repeatability and Pearson correlation to compare the efficacy between binocular refraction based on aberrometry and subjective refraction. Data are represented as mean±SD and p value<0.05 were considered statistically significant.
The refraction parameters repeatability of BROA were excellent (ICC: 0.994; p<0.001 for M; ICC; 0.945; p<0.001 for J45 and ICC: 0.950; p<0.001 for J0). Moreover, the repeatability of SR were slightly worse for M and J0 (ICC: 0.986; p<0.001 for M; ICC; 0.949; p<0.001 for J45 and ICC: 0.919; p<0.001 for J0). Both refraction methods showed similar BCVA, being -0.12 ± 0.09 LogMAR for binocular refraction based on aberrometry and -0.11±0.11 for SR. The main difference was found in the spent time to perform the refraction. The time spent with BROA was 3.24 ± 0.37 minutes meanwhile it was 5.37 ± 1.47 minutes for SR, being statistically significant (p<0.05). Regarding the VAS, the mean score were 85 out 100 and 88 out 100 for BROA and SR, respectively. Finally, a positive strong correlation between BROA and SR were found for M (Pearson: 0.984; p<0.001) and J0 and J45 (Pearson: 0.837; p<0.001 y Pearson: 0.852; p<0.001, respectively).
The BROA shows an excellent repeatability and a strong correlation with SR, spending less chair time. The BROA seems to be a good tool for refraction.
This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2018 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Honolulu, Hawaii, April 29 - May 3, 2018.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only