June 2020
Volume 61, Issue 7
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2020
Comparison of two wavefront autorefractors: binocular open-field versus monocular closed-field
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Gonzalo Carracedo
    Optometry and Vision, University Complutense of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
  • Carlos Carpena Torres
    Optometry and Vision, University Complutense of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
  • Laura Batres Valderas
    Optometry and Vision, University Complutense of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
  • Maria Serramito Blanco
    Optometry and Vision, University Complutense of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Gonzalo Carracedo, None; Carlos Carpena Torres, None; Laura Batres Valderas, None; Maria Serramito Blanco, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2020, Vol.61, 532. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Gonzalo Carracedo, Carlos Carpena Torres, Laura Batres Valderas, Maria Serramito Blanco; Comparison of two wavefront autorefractors: binocular open-field versus monocular closed-field. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2020;61(7):532.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To evaluate the agreement and repeatability between a binocular open-field wavefront autorefractor, as part of Eye Refract dynamic refraction system, (BOWA) and a monocular closed-field wavefront autorefractor (MSWA).

Methods : A cross-sectional, randomized and single-masked study was performed. Ninety-nine eyes of 99 healthy participants (37.22 ± 18.04 years, range 8 to 69 years) were randomly analyzed. Three measurements with BOWA and the MSWA were taken on three different days, under non-cycloplegic conditions. Mean spherical equivalent (MSE), cylindrical vectors (J0 and J45) and binocular corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA) were compared between both autorefractors. An intersession repeatability analysis was done considering the values of repeatability (Sr) and its 95% limit (r).

Results : The MSWA showed more negative values (P < 0.001) in terms of MSE in comparison with BOWA (0.20 D). Regarding cylindrical vectors, J45 showed statistically significant differences (P = 0.001) between both wavefront autorefractors, but they were not clinically relevant (< 0.05 D). In BCDVA, there were no statistically significant differences (P = 0.667) between both wavefront autorefractors. Additionally, BOWA was more repeatable than the MSWA in terms of both MSE (Sr BOWA = 0.21 D, Sr MSWA = 0.53 D) and J0 (Sr BOWA = 0.12 D, Sr MSWA = 0.35 D).

Conclusions : The BOWA provided enough accuracy and reliability to estimate refractive errors in different age groups, achieving better results than the MSWA. Therefore, the BOWA proved to be a useful autorefractor to be incorporated into clinical practice.

This is a 2020 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.

×
×

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.

×