Segura Francisco, Sanchez-Cano Ana, Lopez de la Fuente Carmen, Fuentes-Broto Lorena, Pinilla Isabel
Department of Surgery, Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza 50009, Spain ; Aragon Health Sciences Institute, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza 50009, Spain.
Aragon Health Sciences Institute, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza 50009, Spain ; Department of Applied Physics, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza 50009, Spain.
Int J Ophthalmol. 2015 Oct 18;8(5):1031-6. doi: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2015.05.32. eCollection 2015.
To evaluate the intra-operator repeatability in healthy subjects using the WAM-5500 auto-kerato/refractometer and the iTrace aberrometer, to compare the refractive values and the subjective refraction obtained with both devices and to determine which of these three spherocylindrical corrections allows the subject to achieve the best visual comfort.
Forty-two non-presbyopic healthy eyes of 42 subjects were enrolled in this prospective study. Refractive values were compared, evaluating the repeatability, the relationship between the methods and the best visual comfort obtained.
Sphere, cylinder and axis results showed good intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC); the highest ICC was obtained using the spherical refraction with the autorefractometer and the aberrometer, achieving levels of 0.999 and 0.998, respectively. The power vector (PV) was calculated for each refraction method, and the results indicated that there were no statistically significant differences between them (P>0.05). Direct comparison of PV measurements using the three methods showed that aberrometer refraction gave the highest values, followed by the subjective values; the autorefractometer gave the lowest values. The subjective method correction was most frequently chosen as the first selection. Equal values were found for the autorefractometer and the aberrometer as the second selection.
The iTrace aberrometer and the WAM-5500 auto-kerato/refractometer showed high levels of repeatability in healthy eyes. Refractive corrections with the aberrometer, the autorefractometer and subjective methods presented similar results, but spherocylindrical subjective correction was the most frequently selected option. These technologies can be used as complements in refractive evaluation, but they should not replace subjective refraction.
使用WAM - 5500自动角膜/验光仪和iTrace像差仪评估健康受试者的操作者内重复性，比较两种设备获得的屈光值和主观验光结果，并确定这三种球柱镜矫正方法中哪一种能使受试者获得最佳视觉舒适度。
42名受试者的42只非老视健康眼睛纳入本前瞻性研究。比较屈光值，评估重复性、方法之间的关系以及获得的最佳视觉舒适度。
球镜、柱镜和轴位结果显示出良好的组内相关系数（ICC）；使用自动验光仪和像差仪进行球面屈光测量时获得的ICC最高，分别达到0.999和0.998。计算每种屈光方法的屈光力矢量（PV），结果表明它们之间无统计学显著差异（P>0.05）。使用三种方法对PV测量值进行直接比较显示，像差仪验光得到的值最高，其次是主观验光值；自动验光仪得到的值最低。主观方法矫正最常被选为首选。自动验光仪和像差仪作为第二选择时的值相等。
iTrace像差仪和WAM - 5500自动角膜/验光仪在健康眼睛中显示出高度的重复性。像差仪、自动验光仪和主观方法的屈光矫正结果相似，但球柱镜主观矫正是最常选择的选项。这些技术可作为屈光评估的补充，但不应取代主观验光。
