June 2021
Volume 62, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2021
A comparison between aberrometry-based automated subjective refraction and traditional subjective refraction in keratoconus patients
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Gonzalo Carracedo
    Optometry and Vision, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
  • Carlos Carpena Torres
    Optometry and Vision, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
  • Crisitna Pastrana
    Optometry and Vision, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
  • Ana Privado
    Optometry and Vision, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
  • Maria Serramito
    Optometry and Vision, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
  • Teresa Espinosa Vidal
    Optometry and Vision, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
  • MAria Rodriguez Lafora
    Optometry and Vision, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Gonzalo Carracedo, None; Carlos Carpena Torres, None; Crisitna Pastrana, None; Ana Privado, None; Maria Serramito, None; Teresa Espinosa Vidal, None; MAria Rodriguez Lafora, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  Luneau Technologies Grant
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2021, Vol.62, 2917. 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, Crisitna Pastrana, Ana Privado, Maria Serramito, Teresa Espinosa Vidal, MAria Rodriguez Lafora; A comparison between aberrometry-based automated subjective refraction and traditional subjective refraction in keratoconus patients. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2021;62(8):2917.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
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.

×
×

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.

×