Comparison of WaveScan Aberrometer Refraction to Subjective Manifest Refraction and Autorefractor

Sang Jun Park; Won Ryang Wee; Jin Hak Lee; Mee Kum Kim

doi:10.3341/jkos.2009.50.5.684

TOOLS

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.50(5) > 1008544

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

Park, Wee, Lee, and Kim: Comparison of WaveScan Aberrometer Refraction to Subjective Manifest Refraction and Autorefractor

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2009;50(5):684-690.

Published online: 7 September 2009

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2009.50.5.684

Comparison of WaveScan Aberrometer Refraction to Subjective Manifest Refraction and Autorefractor

Sang Jun Park, MD¹, Won Ryang Wee, MD^1,², Jin Hak Lee, MD^1,^2,³, Mee Kum Kim, MD^1,²

¹Department of Ophthalmology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

²Seoul Artificial Eye Center, Seoul National University Hospital Clinical Research Institute, Seoul, Korea

³Department of Ophthalmology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Sungnam, Korea

Address reprint requests to Mee Kum Kim, MD Department of Ophthalmology, Seoul National University College of Medicine #28 Yeongeon-dong, Jongno-gu, Seoul 110-744, Korea Tel: 82-2-2072-2662, Fax: 82-2-741-3187, E-mail: kmk9@snu.ac.kr

Received 1 September 2008 Accepted 14 January 2008

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the accuracy of myopic refraction using an aberrometer (WaveScan, Visx, Santa Clara, CA, USA) with manifest refraction using retinoscopy and an autorefractor.

Methods

The medical records of 200 eyes in 100 patients who visited our clinic from February 2005 to February 2007 for refractive surgery were reviewed retrospectively. We compared the refractive errors obtained using an aberrometer, retinoscopy, and an autorefractor (KR-7100, Topcon, Tokyo, Japan). All of the measured refractive errors were converted to power vectors for statistical analysis. The power vectors consisted of the M vector (M), J₀ vector (J₀), and J₄₅ vector (J₄₅).

Results

The mean sphere was −4.75 diopters (D) and the mean cylinder was −0.66D with retinoscopy. Power vectors of the aberrometer (PVw) were highly correlated with power vectors of retinoscopy (PVr) and the autrorefractor (PVa). The correlation coefficients (R₂) between PVw and PVr were 0.960 (M), 0.852 (J₀), and 0.679 (J₄₅) and the correlation coefficients between PVw and PVr were 0.963 (M), 0.685 (J₀), and 0.516 (J₄₅). Mean differences were −0.247±0.412D (M), 0.034±0.120D (J₀), and −0.017±1.07D (J₄₅) between PVw and PVr, and were –0.068±0.403D (M), −0.055±0.194D (J₀), and −0.052±0.165D (J₄₅) between PVw and PVa.

Conclusions

The measurement of refractive errors using a WaveScan aberrometer seems to be reliable and accurate, although some myopic shift was observed.

Keywords: Aberrometer, Autorefractor, Manifest refraction, Refraction

References

1. Charman WN. Wavefront Aberration of the Eye: A Review. Optom Vis Sci. 1991; 68:574–83.

2. Wang J-Y, Silva DE. Wavefront interpretation with Zernike polynomials. Applied Optics. 1980; 19:1510–8.

3. Wang L, Wang N, Koch DD. Evaluation of refractive error measurements of the Wavescan Wavefront system and the Tracey Wavefront aberrometer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003; 29:970–9.

4. Reinstein DZ, Archer TJ, Couch D. Accuracy of the WASCA aberrometer refraction compared to manifest refraction in myopia. J Refract Surg. 2006; 22:268–74.

5. Cervino A, Hosking SL, Rai GK, et al. Wavefront analyzers induce instrument myopia. J Refract Surg. 2006; 22:795–803.

6. Jeong JH, Kim MJ, Tchah HW. Clinical Comparison of Laser Ray Tracing Aberrometer and Shack-Hartmann Aberrometer J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2006; 47:1911–9.

7. Liang J, Grimm B, Goelz S, Bille JF. Objective measurement of wave aberrations of the human eye with the use of a Hartmann-Shack wavefront sensor. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 1994; 11:1949–57.

8. Thibos LN, Horner D. Power vector analysis of the optical outcome of refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001; 27:80–5.

9. Thibos LN, Wheeler W, Horner D. Power vectors: an application of Fourier analysis to the description and statistical analysis of refractive error. Optom Vis Sci. 1997; 74:367–75.

10. Kinge B, Midelfart A, Jacobsen G. Clinical evaluation of the Allergan Humphrey 500 autorefractor and the Nidek AR-1000 autorefractor. Br J Ophthalmol. 1996; 80:35–9.

11. Mallen EA, Wolffsohn JS, Gilmartin B, Tsujimura S. Clinical evaluation of the Shin-Nippon SRW-5000 autorefractor in adults. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2001; 21:101–7.

12. Gwiazda J, Weber C. Comparison of spherical equivalent refraction and astigmatism measured with three different models of autorefractors. Optom Vis Sci. 2004; 81:56–61.

13. Elliott M, Simpson T, Richter D, Fonn D. Repeatability and accuracy of automated refraction: a comparison of the Nikon NRK-8000, the Nidek AR-1000, and subjective refraction. Optom Vis Sci. 1997; 74:434–8.

14. Chat SW, Edwards MH. Clinical evaluation of the Shin-Nippon SRW-5000 autorefractor in children. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2001; 21:87–100.

15. Oh JR, Kim JS, Lee DH. The Change of Ocular Aberration after LASIK Surgery. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2003; 44:278–83.

16. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 1:307–10.

17. Goss DA, Grosvenor T. Reliability of refraction–a literature review. J Am Optom Assoc. 1996; 67:619–30.

18. Rosenfield M, Chiu NN. Repeatability of subjective and objective refraction. Optom Vis Sci. 1995; 72:577–9.

19. Nissman SA, Tractenberg RE, Saba CM, et al. Accuracy, repeatability, and clinical application of spherocylindrical automated refraction using time-based wavefront aberrometry measurements. Ophthalmology. 2006; 113:577.

Figure 1.

Correlation graphs and correlation coefficients.

Table 1.

Best corrected visual acuity of patients

Visual acuity	Number	Percent	Cumulative percent
20/12.5	30	15%	14%
20/16	141	70.5%	85.5%
20/20	29	14.5%	100%

Table 2.!

Descriptive statistics of vector analysis

	WaveScan (D)	Manifest refraction (D)	Autorefraction (D)
M vector	−5.00±2.07	−4.75±2.04	−4.93±2.11
J₀ vector	0.266±0.310	0.232±0.297	0.320±0.343
J₄₅ vector	−0.028±0.190	−0.012±0.165	0.024±0.237

D=diopter.

Table 3.

Linear regression statistics with the vectors of the WaveScan

		Pearson correlation	R²	p Value
WaveSacn	M vector	0.980	0.960	<0.001
− Manifest refraction	J₀ vector	0.923	0.852	<0.001
	J₄₅ vector	0.825	0.679	<0.001
WaveSacn	M vector	0.982	0.963	<0.001
− Autorefractor	J₀ vector	0.829	0.685	<0.001
	J₄₅ vector	0.720	0.516	<0.001

Table 4.

Difference of the vectors between the instruments

		Difference (Mean±SD)	95% Confidence Interval	p Value
WaveSacn	M vector	−0.247±0.412	−0.305, −0.189	<0.001
− Manifest refraction	J₀ vector	0.034±0.120	0.017, 0.050	<0.001
	J45 vector	−0.017±0.107	−0.031, −0.002	0.031
WaveSacn	M vector	−0.068±0.403	−0.124, −0.012	0.018
− Autorefractor	J₀ vector	−0.055±0.194	−0.082, −0.028	<0.001
	J₄₅ vector	−0.052±0.166	−0.075, −0.029	<0.001

TOOLS

Similar articles