Berntsen David A, Mutti Donald O, Zadnik Karla
College of Optometry, The Ohio State University, 338 West 10th Ave., Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2008 Jan;28(1):83-90. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2007.00535.x.
To validate aberrometry-based relative peripheral refraction (RPR) measurements and to examine RPR differences in the nasal and temporal horizontal visual field.
Thirty subjects underwent cycloplegia in the right eye. Ten measurements each were made centrally, 30 degrees nasally on the retina and 30 degrees temporally on the retina using the Complete Ophthalmic Analysis System (COAS) aberrometer and the Grand Seiko WR-5100K autorefractor in random order. A 2-mm COAS analysis diameter was used to approximate the Grand Seiko autorefractor measurement beam diameter. Nasal and temporal RPR were calculated as the difference between the average nasal or temporal spherical equivalent and the average central spherical equivalent. Repeated measures ANOVAs were used to test for significant differences between the RPR readings of each instrument in each retinal location (nasal or temporal) and to examine refractive error in each direction of gaze for both instruments.
Central spherical equivalent refractive error as measured by the Grand Seiko autorefractor ranged from +0.63 D to -8.41 D (mean +/- S.D. = -2.63 D +/- 2.05 D). There were no significant differences between the instruments for RPR measurements (p = 0.34). The nasal RPR was significantly more hyperopic than the temporal RPR (mean +/- S.D. = +0.45 D +/- 1.04 D, p = 0.02). Spherical equivalent refractive error in all directions of gaze was more myopic with the COAS than with the Grand Seiko autorefractor (mean +/- S.D. = -0.41 D +/- 0.61 D, p < 0.0001).
RPR measurements with the COAS are feasible and equivalent to those made with the Grand Seiko autorefractor. The COAS can be used to simultaneously collect RPR and peripheral aberration data. Nasal and temporal RPR measurements were significantly different in our sample.
验证基于像差仪的相对周边屈光力（RPR）测量，并检查鼻侧和颞侧水平视野中的RPR差异。
30名受试者右眼接受睫状肌麻痹。使用综合眼科分析系统（COAS）像差仪和精工WR-5100K自动验光仪，以随机顺序分别在中心、视网膜鼻侧30度和视网膜颞侧30度进行10次测量。使用2毫米的COAS分析直径来近似精工自动验光仪的测量光束直径。鼻侧和颞侧RPR计算为平均鼻侧或颞侧球镜等效度数与平均中心球镜等效度数之间的差值。采用重复测量方差分析来检验每种仪器在每个视网膜位置（鼻侧或颞侧）的RPR读数之间的显著差异，并检查两种仪器在每个注视方向上的屈光不正情况。
精工自动验光仪测量的中心球镜等效屈光不正范围为+0.63 D至-8.41 D（平均值±标准差=-2.63 D±2.05 D）。两种仪器在RPR测量上无显著差异（p = 0.34）。鼻侧RPR明显比颞侧RPR更远视（平均值±标准差=+0.45 D±1.04 D，p = 0.02）。与精工自动验光仪相比，COAS在所有注视方向上的球镜等效屈光不正更近视（平均值±标准差=-0.41 D±0.61 D，p < 0.0001）。
使用COAS进行RPR测量是可行的，且与精工自动验光仪的测量结果相当。COAS可用于同时收集RPR和周边像差数据。在我们的样本中，鼻侧和颞侧RPR测量结果存在显著差异。
