Suppr超能文献

使用COAS Shack-Hartmann像差仪测量年轻近视患者的屈光不正。

Measurement of refractive errors in young myopes using the COAS Shack-Hartmann aberrometer.

作者信息

Salmon Thomas O, West Roger W, Gasser Wayne, Kenmore Todd

机构信息

College of Optometry, Northeastern State University, Tahlequah, Oklahoma 74464-7017, USA.

出版信息

Optom Vis Sci. 2003 Jan;80(1):6-14. doi: 10.1097/00006324-200301000-00003.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To evaluate the Complete Ophthalmic Analysis System (COAS; WaveFront Science) for accuracy, repeatability, and instrument myopia when measuring myopic refractive errors.

METHODS

We measured the refractive errors of 20 myopic subjects (+0.25 to -10 D sphere; 0 to -1.75 D cylinder) with a COAS, a phoropter, and a Nidek ARK-2000 autorefractor. Measurements were made for right and left eyes, with and without cycloplegia, and data were analyzed for large and small pupils. We used the phoropter refraction as our estimate of the true refractive error, so accuracy was defined as the difference between phoropter refraction and that of the COAS and autorefractor. Differences and means were computed using power vectors, and accuracy was summarized in terms of mean vector and mean spherocylindrical power errors. To assess repeatability, we computed the mean vector deviation for each of five measurements from the mean power vector and computed a coefficient of repeatability. Instrument myopia was defined as the difference between cycloplegic and noncycloplegic refractions for the same eyes.

RESULTS

Without cycloplegia, both the COAS and autorefractor had mean power vector errors of 0.3 to 0.4 D. Cycloplegia improved autorefractor accuracy by 0.1 D, but COAS accuracy remained the same. For large pupils, COAS accuracy was best when Zernike mode Z4(0) (primary spherical aberration) was included in the computation of sphere power. COAS repeatability was slightly better than autorefraction repeatability. Mean instrument myopia for the COAS was not significantly different from zero.

CONCLUSIONS

When measuring myopes, COAS accuracy, repeatability, and instrument myopia were similar to those of the autorefractor. Error margins for both were better than the accuracy of subjective refraction. We conclude that in addition to its capability to measure higher-order aberrations, the COAS can be used as a reliable, accurate autorefractor.

摘要

目的

评估全眼分析系统(COAS;波前科学公司)在测量近视屈光不正时的准确性、可重复性和仪器性近视。

方法

我们使用COAS、综合验光仪和尼德克ARK - 2000自动验光仪测量了20名近视受试者(球镜度数为+0.25至 - 10 D;柱镜度数为0至 - 1.75 D)的屈光不正。对右眼和左眼进行了测量,测量时使用了睫状肌麻痹剂和未使用睫状肌麻痹剂两种情况,并对大瞳孔和小瞳孔的数据进行了分析。我们将综合验光仪的验光结果作为真实屈光不正的估计值,因此准确性定义为综合验光仪验光结果与COAS及自动验光仪验光结果之间的差异。使用屈光力矢量计算差异和平均值,并以平均矢量和平均球柱面屈光力误差来总结准确性。为了评估可重复性,我们计算了五次测量中每次测量与平均屈光力矢量的平均矢量偏差,并计算了可重复性系数。仪器性近视定义为同一只眼睛在使用睫状肌麻痹剂和未使用睫状肌麻痹剂时验光结果的差异。

结果

在未使用睫状肌麻痹剂时,COAS和自动验光仪的平均屈光力矢量误差均为0.3至0.4 D。睫状肌麻痹使自动验光仪的准确性提高了0.1 D,但COAS的准确性保持不变。对于大瞳孔,当在球镜屈光力计算中纳入泽尼克模式Z4(0)(初级球差)时,COAS的准确性最佳。COAS的可重复性略优于自动验光的可重复性。COAS的平均仪器性近视与零无显著差异。

结论

在测量近视患者时,COAS的准确性、可重复性和仪器性近视与自动验光仪相似。两者的误差范围均优于主观验光的准确性。我们得出结论,除了能够测量高阶像差外,COAS还可作为一种可靠、准确 的自动验光仪使用。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验