A comparative study between manifest, cycloplegic and wavefront refraction in myopia | ||
| Sohag Medical Journal | ||
| Article 2, Volume 22, Issue 3, October 2018, Pages 9-16 PDF (105.46 K) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/smj.2018.31118 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Ahmed Refai; Ali Ismail; Hatem Ammar; Engy Mohamed Mostafa | ||
| Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Sohag University. | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Aim. to compare between manifest, cycloplegic and wavefront refraction in different grades of myopia. Methods. 100 myopic eyes were included. The data collected included: age, sex, manifest refraction, cycloplegic refraction, wavefront refraction and pupil diameter. Manifest refraction was acquired by autorefractometer ( NideK). Cycloplegic refraction was acquired after applying cyclopentolate eye drops 1% for an hour. Wavefront refraction was acquired by the iDesign aberrometer ( Hartmann Shack Aberrometer) (Visx, USA) using a 32 × 32 lenslet array and near infra-red light with a wavelength of 780 nm. Results. The study showed that the wavefront refraction using the iDesign aberrometer (Hartmann-Shack aberrometer) gives higher values for each of sphere, cylinder and spherical equivalent followed by the manifest autorefraction using the Nidek autorefractometer and lastly cycloplegic refraction in all grades of myopia. Conclusions. Regarding the three methods of refraction (manifest, cycloplegic and wavefront), our results showed that the wavefront refraction acquired by the iDesign aberrometer (Hartmann Shack Aberrometer) shows higher values for each of sphere, cylinder and spherical equivalent, followed by manifest refraction acquired by autorefractometer (NideK) and lastly cycloplegic refraction in all grades of myopia. | ||
|
Supplementary Files
|
||
| References | ||
|
1. Hersh PS, Fry KL, Bishop DS. Incidence and associations of retreatment after LASIK. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:748-754.
2. Thibos LN, Hong X, Bradley A, Applegate RA. Accuracy and precision of objective refraction from wavefront aberrations. J Vis. 2004;4:329-351.
3.] Refraction. In: Basic and Clinical Science Course, 1995-96. San Francisco, Calif: American Academy of Ophthalmology; 1995.Francisco, Calif: American Academy of Ophthalmology; 1995.
4. Atchison DA. Comparison of peripheral refractions determined by different instruments. Optom Vis Sci. 2003;80:655-660.
5. Howland HC. High order wave aberration of eyes. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2002;22:434-439.
6. Guirao A, Williams DR. A method to predict refractive errors from wave aberration data. Optom Vis Sci. 2003;80:36–42.
7. Cheng X, Thibos L, Bradley A. Estimating visual quality from wavefront aberration measurements. J Refract Surg. 2003;19:S579–S584.
8. Thibos LN, Applegate RA, Marcos S. Aberrometry: The past, present, and future of optometry. Optom Vis Sci. 2003;80:1–2.
9. Cheng X, Himebaugh N, Kollbaum PS, et al. Validation of a clinical Shack-Hartmann aberrometer. Optom Vis Sci. 2003;80:587–595.
10. Cervin˜o A, Hosking SL, Rai GK, Naroo SA, Gilmartin B. Wavefront analyzers induce instrument myopia. J Refract Surg 2006;22:795Y803.
11. McGinnigle S, Naroo SA, Eperjesi F. Evaluation of the autorefraction function of the Nidek OPD-Scan III. ClinExpOptom.
12. Pesudovs K, Parker KE, Cheng H, Applegate RA. The precision of wavefront refraction compared to subjective refraction and autorefraction. Optom Vis Sci 2007;84:387Y92.
13. Yeung IY, Mantry S, Cunliffe IA, Benson MT, Shah S. Correlation of Nidek OPD-Scan objective refraction with subjective refraction. J Refract Surg 2004;20:S734Y-6.
14. Nayak PK, Ghose S, Singh JP. A comparison of cycloplegic and manifest refractions on the NR-100OF (an objective Auto Refractometer). BrJOphthalmol 1987;71(1):73-5.
15. RotsosT, D Grigoriou, AKokkolaki, N Manios. A comparison of manifest refractions, cycloplegic refractions and retinoscopy on the RMA-3000 autorefractometer in children aged 3 to 15 years. Clinical Ophthalmology 2009:3429–431.
16. Jung JW, Chung BH, Han SH, Kim EK, Seo KY, Kim TI. Comparison of Measurements and Clinical Outcomes After Wavefront-Guided LASEK Between iDesign and WaveScan. J Refract Surg. 2015 Jun;31(6):398-405.
17. Perez-Straziota CE, Randleman JB, StultingRD. Objective and subjective preoperative refraction techniques for wavefront-optimized and wavefront-guided laser insitukeratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009; 35: 256-259.
18. Zhu R., K.-L. Long, X.-M.Wu, Q.-D. Li. Comparison of the VISX wavescan and OPD-scan III with the subjective refraction .2016; 20:2988-2992.
19. Salmon TO, West RW, Gasser W, Kenmore T. Measurement of refractive errors in young myopes using the COAS Shack-Hartmann aberrometer. Optom Vis Sci 2003;80:6Y14. | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 325 PDF Download: 442 |
||
