July 2019
Volume 60, Issue 9
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   July 2019
WITHDRAWN_A comparison of refraction data from Hartmann-Shack wavefront and adaptive optics visual simulator to other established methods of refraction
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Carles Otero
    Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, United Kingdom
  • Juan Tabernero
    Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, United Kingdom
  • John Kidd
    Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, United Kingdom
  • Shahina Pardhan
    Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, United Kingdom
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Carles Otero, None; Juan Tabernero, None; John Kidd, None; Shahina Pardhan, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  EU H2020 Project ID:778591 BeVision
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science July 2019, Vol.60, 595. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Carles Otero, Juan Tabernero, John Kidd, Shahina Pardhan; WITHDRAWN_A comparison of refraction data from Hartmann-Shack wavefront and adaptive optics visual simulator to other established methods of refraction. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2019;60(9):595.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To compare Hartmann-Shack wavefront refraction and adaptive optics visual simulator to clinical refraction, and to investigate the effect of age, refractive error and presence of ocular conditions

Methods : Non-cycloplegic monocular subjective refraction was obtained in heterogeneous sample of 432 subjects with 4 different refraction methods: 1) subjective clinical refraction by a qualified optometrist (ClinicianRefraction); 2) autorefraction (The Accuref-K 9001 instrumen); 3) Hartmann-Shack wavefront refraction (WavefrontRefraction); and 4) subjective refraction performed on an adaptive optics visual simulator (AORefraction). The Visual Adaptive Optics instrument (VAO, Voptica, S.L., Spain) was used for both the wavefront refraction and the adaptive optics subjective refraction. Subjects were divided into 3 age groups: (1) 18 and 40 years of age; (2) between 41 and 60; (3) older than 60 years of age. Refractive error had 3 levels: myopia; emmetropia; and hyperopia. Emmetropia was defined as the best corrected spherical equivalent between -0.25 to +0.75 D. Ocular conditions was a dichotomic variable with two levels: presence or absence of ocular pathology. Data was analyzed with the 95% Limits of Agreement for each power vector component (M, J0 and J45)

Results : The median spherical equivalent difference and the limits of agreement with the clinical subjective refraction were (+0.13, ±0.90), (+0.38, ±1.00) and (-0.38, ±1.15) D for AORefraction, WavefrontRefraction and Autorefraction, respectively. When considering only healthy subjects, the results were (+0.00, ±0.90), (+0.38, ±0.95) and (-0.34, ±0.85), respectively. Analogously, when considering only those subjects with any ocular condition, the results were (+0.13, ±1.00), (+0.37, ±1.15) and (-0.50, ±1.95) D

Conclusions : The AORefraction is more accurate than WavefrontRefraction and Autorefraction, regardless of age, refractive error or the presence of ocular conditions. The presence of ocular conditions significantly deteriorates the accuracy of all refraction methods therefore the comparison between refraction methods and the validation of new refraction equipment should be interpreted only within the scope of the typology of the sample measured

This abstract was presented at the 2019 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Vancouver, Canada, April 28 - May 2, 2019.

×
×

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.

×