June 2023
Volume 64, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2023
Validation of autorefraction and relative peripheral refraction with a pyramidal wavefront sensor
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Augustine Nyarko Nti
    University of Houston College of Optometry, Houston, Texas, United States
  • Jackson C Dolce
    University of Houston College of Optometry, Houston, Texas, United States
  • David A Berntsen
    University of Houston College of Optometry, Houston, Texas, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Augustine Nti None; Jackson Dolce None; David Berntsen None
  • Footnotes
    Support  NIH T35-EY007088 (JCD); P30-EY007551
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2023, Vol.64, 3303. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Augustine Nyarko Nti, Jackson C Dolce, David A Berntsen; Validation of autorefraction and relative peripheral refraction with a pyramidal wavefront sensor. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2023;64(8):3303.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Aberrometers can be used to simultaneously measure peripheral ocular aberrations in addition to peripheral refraction in studies of myopia progression. We compared central and peripheral refraction and relative peripheral refraction (RPR) between an open-field autorefractor and a pyramidal wavefront sensor.

Methods : Cycloplegic central and peripheral (20° and 30° on the nasal and temporal retina) autorefraction were measured on the right eye of 24 young adults. Ten autorefraction measures from the Grand Seiko WR-5100K autorefractor (Shigiya Machinery Works Ltd., Japan) and 3 refraction measures from the Osiris aberrometer (CSO, Italy) using a 2.5mm analysis diameter were converted to power vectors; M, J0, and J45. A 2.5mm analysis diameter was chosen to provide a close match to the 2.3mm outer diameter of the autorefractor measurement beam. RPR was computed by subtracting spherical equivalent (M) at the central location from each peripheral location. Measurements between the two instruments were compared using repeated-measures ANOVA with adjusted post hoc t-tests and difference versus mean plots.

Results : Mean (± SD) age and right eye spherical equivalent refraction were 24 ± 2 years and -4.01 ± 1.81D (range: -1.25 to -8.25D), respectively. M depended on both the instrument used and eccentricity, and was about 0.50D more positive with the aberrometer than with the autorefractor at each eccentricity (range 0.45 to 0.64D, all p < 0.001) except 20° nasal retina (p = 0.72). Across all eccentricities, J0 was on average 0.16D more negative with the aberrometer (p < 0.001), and this difference between instruments did not vary based on measurement eccentricity (p = 0.053). There was no difference in J45 between the two instruments (p = 0.69). Difference in RPR between the two instruments also depended on eccentricity (p < 0.001). There was no difference in RPR between the two instruments (all p > 0.05) except at the 20° nasal retina (mean difference; 0.51D more negative with the aberrometer, p = 0.01).

Conclusions : Spherical equivalent refraction is generally more positive with the pyramidal aberrometer than with the open-field autorefractor. RPR is similar between the two instruments except for 20° nasal retina, which may be due to proximity to the optic nerve head. Further work is needed to compare these instruments when wearing myopia control lenses.

This abstract was presented at the 2023 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in New Orleans, LA, April 23-27, 2023.

×
×

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.

×