Abstract
Purpose :
To evaluate the agreement between the Eye Refract, a new instrument to perform aberrometry-based automated subjective refraction, and the traditional subjective refraction in keratoconus patients.
Methods :
A total of 50 eyes of 50 keratoconus patients were randomly evaluated, dividing the sample into two groups: 27 eyes without intracorneal ring segments (ICRS) (37.78 ± 9.35 years) and 23 eyes with ICRS (39.26 ± 13.62 years). An optometrist conducted the refraction with the Eye Refract and another different optometrist conducted the traditional subjective refraction on the same day, also randomly. Spherical equivalent (M), cylindrical vectors (J0 and J45), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), and time spent performing refraction were compared between both methods of refraction. Additionally, Bland-Altman analysis was performed to assess the agreement between both methods of refraction.
Results :
There were no statistically significant differences (P ≥ 0.05) in terms of M, J0, J45, and CDVA between the Eye Refract and the traditional subjective refraction in either group. However, the Eye Refract was faster for performing refraction than the traditional method (5:37 ± 1:35 min:s vs. 8:36 ± 2:37 min:s, P < 0.001). Without ICRS, the mean difference and 95% limits of agreement were -0.20 [+1.50, -1.89] D for M, -0.14 [+1.40, -1.68] D for J0, and +0.05 [+1.23, -1.14] D for J45. These values worsened with ICRS to -0.62 [+3.89, -5.12] D for M, +0.06 [+2.46, -2.34] D for J0, and -0.02 [+2.23, -2.28] D for J45.
Conclusions :
The Eye Refract would offer faster refraction compared to the traditional method, and also similar refractive results in keratoconus patients not implanted with ICRS. However, some patients could show abnormal measurements, especially those with ICRS, who should be treated with caution in clinical practice.
This is a 2021 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.