Suppr超能文献

四种像差仪评估低阶和高阶像差的分析。

Analysis of four aberrometers for evaluating lower and higher order aberrations.

机构信息

Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e54990. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054990. Epub 2013 Jan 22.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare the measurements of lower and higher order aberrations (HOA) of 4 commonly used aberrometers.

SETTING

Massachusetts Eye & Ear Infirmary, Boston, USA.

DESIGN

Prospective, cross-sectional study, in a controlled, single-blinded fashion.

METHODS

Multiple readings were obtained in 42 eyes of 21 healthy volunteers, at a single visit, with each of the following aberrometers: Alcon LADARWave®, Visx WaveScan®, B & L Zywave®, and Wavelight Allegro Analyzer®. Results were compared and analyzed in regards to the lower and HOA, to the different wavefront sensing devices and software, Tscherning and Hartmann-Shack and between the Fourier and Zernike algorithms. Statistical analysis included Bland-Altman plots, Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), multiple comparison tests with Analysis of Variance and Kruskal-Wallis. Significant level was set to p<0.05 and alpha level correction was adjusted under the Bonferroni criteria.

RESULTS

Most measurements of all 4 aberrometers were comparable. However, statistically significant differences were found between the aberrometers in total HOA (tHOA), spherical aberration (SA), horizontal coma and astigmatism (2,2). LADARwave and Wavescan showed significant differences in tHOA (P<0.001, ICC = 0.549, LoA = 0.19±0.5) and in SA (P<0.001, ICC = 0.733, LoA = 0.16±0.37). Wavescan showed a significant difference compared to Zywave (p<0.001, ICC = 0.920, LoA = 0.09±0.13) in SA. Comparisons between Allegro Analyzer and Zywave demonstrated significant differences in both Horizontal Coma (3,1) (p<0.001, ICC = -0.207, LoA = -0.15±0.48) and Astigmatism (2,2) (P = 0.003, ICC = -0.965, LoA = 0.2±2.5). Allegro Analyzer also differed from Wavescan in Horizontal Coma (3,1) (P<0.001, ICC = 0.725, LoA = -0.07±0.25).

CONCLUSIONS

Although some measurements were comparable predominately in the lower order aberrations, significant differences were found in the tHOA, SA, horizontal coma and astigmatism. Our analysis suggests that sensor design contributes to agreement in lower order aberrations, and Fourier and Zernike expansion might disagree in higher order aberrations. Therefore, comparison between aberrometers was generally possible with some exceptions in higher order measurements.

摘要

目的

比较 4 种常用像差仪测量的低阶和高阶像差。

地点

美国波士顿马萨诸塞眼耳医院。

设计

前瞻性、横断面研究,采用单盲对照设计。

方法

在单次就诊时,对 21 名健康志愿者的 42 只眼进行多次读数,分别使用以下像差仪:Alcon LADARWave®、Visx WaveScan®、B & L Zywave®和 Wavelight Allegro Analyzer®。对低阶和高阶像差、不同的波前感应设备和软件(Tscherning 和 Hartmann-Shack)以及傅里叶和泽尼克算法之间的结果进行比较和分析。统计分析包括 Bland-Altman 图、组内相关系数(ICC)、方差分析和 Kruskal-Wallis 多重比较检验。显著性水平设为 p<0.05,根据 Bonferroni 标准调整了 alpha 水平校正。

结果

大多数 4 种像差仪的测量结果都具有可比性。然而,在总像差(tHOA)、球差(SA)、水平彗差和散光(2,2)方面,各像差仪之间存在统计学显著差异。LADARWave 和 Wavescan 在 tHOA(P<0.001,ICC=0.549,LoA=0.19±0.5)和 SA(P<0.001,ICC=0.733,LoA=0.16±0.37)方面存在显著差异。与 Zywave 相比,Wavescan 在 SA 方面也存在显著差异(p<0.001,ICC=0.920,LoA=0.09±0.13)。Allegro Analyzer 与 Zywave 的比较显示,在水平彗差(3,1)(p<0.001,ICC=-0.207,LoA=-0.15±0.48)和散光(2,2)(P=0.003,ICC=-0.965,LoA=0.2±2.5)方面存在显著差异。Allegro Analyzer 与 Wavescan 在水平彗差(3,1)方面也存在显著差异(P<0.001,ICC=0.725,LoA=-0.07±0.25)。

结论

尽管一些测量结果在低阶像差方面具有可比性,但在 tHOA、SA、水平彗差和散光方面存在显著差异。我们的分析表明,传感器设计有助于低阶像差的一致性,而傅里叶和泽尼克展开可能在高阶像差方面存在差异。因此,除了在高阶测量方面存在一些例外情况外,通常可以对不同的像差仪进行比较。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d76f/3551914/213dcfec6d29/pone.0054990.g001.jpg

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