Comparison of Colvardpupillometer, ORBScan II and Sirius in Determining Pupil Size for Refractive Surgery

Ji Sun Baek; Ji Hyun Park; Eun Seok Yoo; Young A Kwon; Sang Wroul Song; Byoung Yeop Kim; Jae Lim Chung

doi:10.3341/jkos.2013.54.8.1175

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.54(8) > 1009442

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Baek, Park, Yoo, Kwon, Song, Kim, and Chung: Comparison of Colvardpupillometer, ORBScan II and Sirius in Determining Pupil Size for Refractive Surgery

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2013;54(8):1175-1179.

Published online: 7 September 2013

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2013.54.8.1175

Comparison of Colvardpupillometer, ORBScan II and Sirius in Determining Pupil Size for Refractive Surgery

Ji Sun Baek, MD¹, Ji Hyun Park, MD², Eun Seok Yoo, MD³, Young A Kwon, MD¹, Sang Wroul Song, MD¹, Byoung Yeop Kim, MD¹, Jae Lim Chung, MD^1,

¹Department of Ophthalmology, Konyang University, Kim’s Eye Hospital, Seoul, Korea

²Daesung Yonsei Eye Clinic, Bucheon, Korea

³Minduelre Eye Clinic, Daejeon, Korea

Address reprint requests to Jae Lim Chung, MD Kim’s Eye Hospital #136 Yeongsin-ro, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul 150-034, Korea Tel: 82-2-2639-7812, Fax: 82-2-2633-3976, E-mail: jlchung@kimeye.com

This study was presented as a narration at the 106th Annual Meeting of the Korean Ophthalmology Society 2011.

Received 5 October 201212 February 2013 Accepted 1 June 2013

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 pupil size measured by Colvard^® pupillometer, ORBScan II^®, Sirius^® and analyze correlation be-tween pupil size and night vision disturbance after refractive surgery according to measuring methods.

Methods

Two hundred eyes of one hundred patients who underwent refractive surgery were retrospectively evaluated. Pupil size was measured with Colvard^® pupillometer, Sirius^® in the scotopic light condition and with ORBScan II^®, Sirius^® in the photopic light condition. Patients filled out questionnaire about night vision disturbance at postoperative three months. Correlation between pupil size according to measuring methods and night vision disturbance was evaluated.

Results

The mean age of patient was 26 years and number of male patients was 36. In scotopic light condition, pupil size measured with Colvard^® pupillometer (6.76 mm) was significantly larger than that of Sirius^® (6.53 mm) (p < 0.001). In pho-topic light condition, pupil size measured with ORBScan II^® (3.98 mm) was significantly smaller than that of Sirius^® (4.41 mm) (p < 0.001). Night vision disturbance were correlated with pupil size and Sirius^® in the scotopic light condition had strongest correlation among three measuring method (r = 0.44).

Conclusions

Sirius^® tends to measure pupil size smaller than Colvard^® pupillometer in the scotopic light condition. The cor-relation between night vision disturbance and pupil size was highest in Sirius^®.

Keywords: Colvard^® pupillometer, Night vision disturbance, ORBScan II^®, Pupil size, Sirius^®

References

1. Kim HM, Jung HR. Laser assisted in situ keratomileusis for high myopia. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 1996; 27:(5 Suppl). S508–11.

2. Stephenson CG, Gartry DS, O’Brart DP. . Photorefractive keratectomy. a 6-year follow-up study. Ophthalmology. 1998; 105:273–81.

3. Pop M, Payette Y. Risk factors for night vision complaints after LASIK for myopia. Ophthalmology. 2004; 111:3–10.

4. Martinez CE, Appelegate RA, Klyce SD. . Effect of papillary dilation on corneal optical aberrations after photorefractive keratectomy. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998; 116:1053–62.

5. Helgesen A, Hjortdal J, Ehlers N. Pupil size and night vision dis-turbances after LASIK for myopia. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2004; 82:454–60.

6. Mantry S, Banerjee S, Naroo S, Shah S. Scotopic measurement of normal pupil size with the Colvardpupillometer and the Nidek au-to-refractor. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2005; 28:53–6.

7. Wang Y, Zhao K, Jin Y. . Changes of higher order aberration with various pupil sizes in the myopic eye. J Refract Surg. 2003; 19:(2 Suppl). S270–4.

8. Salz JJ, Trattler W. Pupil size and corneal laser surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2006; 17:373–9.

9. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agree-ment between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 1:307–10.

10. Fan-Paul NI, Li J, Miller JS, Florakis GJ. Night vision disturbances after corneal refractive surgery. Surv Ophthalmol. 2002; 47:533–46.

11. Tahzib NG, Bootsma SJ, Eggink FA, Nuijts RM. Functional out-come and patient satisfaction after Artisan phakic intraocular lens implantation for correction of myopia. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006; 142:31–9.

12. Chalita MR, Chavala S, Xu M, Krueger RR. Wavefront analysis in post-LASIK eyes and its correlation with visual symptoms, refraction, and topography. Ophthalmology. 2004; 111:447–53.

13. Kohnen T, Terzi E, Bühren J, Kohnen EM. Comparison of a digital and a handheld infrared pupillometer for determining scotopic pu-pil diameter. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003; 29:112–7.

14. Rosen ES, Gore CL, Taylor D. . Use of a digital infrared pupill-ometer to assess patient suitability for refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002; 28:1433–8.

15. Bootsma S, Tahzib N, Eggink F. . Comparison of two pupillometers in determining pupil size for refractive surgery. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2007; 85:324–8.

16. Pop M, Payette Y, Santoriello E. Comparison of the pupil card and pupillometer in measuring pupil size. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002; 28:283–8.

17. Savini G, Barboni P, Carbonelli M, Hoffer KJ. Repeatability of au-tomatic measurements by a new Scheimpflug camera combined with Placido topography. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011; 37:1809–16.

Figure 1.

Grading picture of subjective night vision disturbance.

Figure 2.

Bland-Altman plot of pupil size by Colvard® versus Sirius® in scotopic condition.

Figure 3.

Bland-Altman plot of pupil size by Sirius® versus ORBScan II® in photopic condition.

Table 1.

Grading system of night vision disturbance

Grade
1	Doesn’t have night visual disturbance
2	Has night visual disturbance but doesn’t cause discomfort
3	Has night visual disturbance and cause discomfort
4	Has night visual disturbance and it is difficult to drive in night

Table 2.

Patient demographics and characteristics at baseline

Factor	N = 200 eyes
Sex (M : F)	36 : 64
Age at surgery (years)	26.0 ± 6.4
Contact lens use (years)	3.5 (none to 15)
≥5 years	32
<5 years	42
None	26
Refractive error	-5.41D (-10.25 to -0.75)
Ablation zone	6.25 ± 0.25 mm

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

Table 3.

Comparisons of pupil size according to measuring method

Pupil size	Colvard®	Sirius®	ORBScan II®	p-value
Scotopic state (mm)	6.76 ± 0.68	6.53 ± 0.81		<0.001
Photopic state (mm)		4.41 ± 0.74	3.99 ± 0.59	<0.001

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

Table 4.

Grading system of night vision disturbance

Grade	N = 100
1	57
2	31
3	10
4	2

Table 5.

Correlation of night vision disturbance with pupil size according to measuring method

	Pearson correlation coefficient	p-value
Colvard®	0.341	0.034^*
Sirius®scotopic	0.440	0.005^*
Colvard®- ablation zone	0.259	0.111^*
Sirius®scotopic-ablation zone	0.385	0.015^*

^* Pearson correlation.

TOOLS

Similar articles