Tabernero Juan, Otero Carles, Pardhan Shahina
Vision and Eye Research Institute, School of Medicine, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK.
Departamento de Electromagnetismo y Electrónica, Facultad de Química, Universidad de Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2020 Jun 22;9(7):23. doi: 10.1167/tvst.9.7.23. eCollection 2020 Jun.
The Visual Adaptive Optics (VAO) is an adaptive optics visual simulator with an embedded Hartmann-Shack aberrometer that can give objective and subjective refraction measures. The aim of the present study was to compare the findings of the objective and subjective refractions from the VAO with a commercial autorefractometer (Topcon Corp., Tokyo, Japan) and a subjective refraction by an optometrist. The influence of age, refractive error type, and presence of ocular diseases was ascertained.
The refractive error was obtained in 469 participants using the four techniques mentioned. Data were analyzed with power vectors mean spherical equivalent, the vertical Jackson-Cross-Cylinder, and the oblique Jackson-Cross-Cylinder. Age, refractive error type (myopia, emmetropia, hyperopia) and presence of ocular diseases (yes, no) were included as covariates. Agreement was assessed using the 95% interval of agreement.
The median spherical equivalent difference and the interval of agreement for all the participants with the VAO subjective, VAO objective, and autorefraction with the clinical subjective refraction were (+0.13, 1.80 diopters [D]), (+0.38, 1.80 D), and (-0.38, 2.10 D), respectively. When considering only healthy participants, the results were (+0.06, 1.70 D), (+0.38, 1.60 D) and (-0.25, 1.80 D), respectively. When considering only those participants with any ocular condition, the results with VAO subjective, VAO objective and autorefraction were (+0.13, 2.50 D), (+0.31, 2.70 D), and (-0.50, 4.80 D), respectively.
The VAO subjective refraction is more accurate than VAO objective refraction and autorefraction, regardless of refractive error, age, or the presence of ocular conditions. The presence of ocular conditions significantly deteriorates the accuracy of all refraction methods.
Reported clinical comparisons between different types of standard refraction methods and a new adaptive optics refraction instrument (VAO) are in good agreement and support the further development of this method to increase refraction accuracy and to refract quicker than standard procedures.
视觉自适应光学(VAO)是一种带有嵌入式哈特曼-夏克像差仪的自适应光学视觉模拟器,能够提供客观和主观验光测量结果。本研究的目的是比较VAO的客观和主观验光结果与商用自动验光仪(日本东京拓普康公司)以及验光师进行的主观验光结果。确定年龄、屈光不正类型和眼部疾病的存在与否所产生的影响。
使用上述四种技术对469名参与者进行屈光不正测量。数据采用屈光力向量平均球镜等效度、垂直杰克逊交叉柱镜和斜向杰克逊交叉柱镜进行分析。将年龄、屈光不正类型(近视、正视、远视)和眼部疾病的存在与否(是、否)作为协变量纳入分析。使用95%一致性区间评估一致性。
所有参与者中,VAO主观验光、VAO客观验光以及自动验光与临床主观验光的球镜等效度中位数差异和一致性区间分别为(+0.13,1.80屈光度[D])、(+0.38,1.80 D)和(-0.38,2.10 D)。仅考虑健康参与者时,结果分别为(+0.06,1.70 D)、(+0.38,1.60 D)和(-0.25,1.80 D)。仅考虑患有任何眼部疾病的参与者时,VAO主观验光、VAO客观验光和自动验光的结果分别为(+0.13,2.50 D)、(+0.31,2.70 D)和(-0.50,4.80 D)。
无论屈光不正情况、年龄或是否存在眼部疾病,VAO主观验光比VAO客观验光和自动验光更准确。眼部疾病的存在会显著降低所有验光方法的准确性。
不同类型标准验光方法与新型自适应光学验光仪器(VAO)之间的临床比较报告结果高度一致,支持进一步开发该方法以提高验光准确性并比标准程序更快地进行验光。