Literature DB >> 12498848

Repeatability and validity of Zywave aberrometer measurements.

Willem J Hament1, Vaisjaly A Nabar, Rudy M M A Nuijts.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To study the repeatability of Zywave aberrometer (Bausch & Lomb) measurements and compare the measurements with those of subjective refraction and noncycloplegic and cycloplegic autorefractions in a clinical setting.
SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
METHODS: Subjective manifest refraction, noncycloplegic autorefraction, cycloplegic autorefraction, and Zywave aberrometer measurements were performed in 20 eyes of 20 myopic patients. Three consecutive Zywave measurements were performed with and without dilation of the pupil. The mean difference and 95% limits of agreement among the measurement methods were determined for dilated and 3.5 mm pupils. The repeatability coefficient of the Zywave aberrometer measurements was determined.
RESULTS: The mean differences in spherical equivalent (SE), sphere, and cylinder between subjective refraction and Zywave predicted phoropter refraction (PPR) with a dilated pupil were -1.10 diopters (D) +/- 0.46 (SD) (P <.001), -1.08 +/- 0.44 D (P <.001), and -0.02 +/- 0.37 D (P =.87), respectively (paired Student t test). After the data were converted to a 3.5 mm pupil, the mean differences were -0.55 +/- 0.48 D (P <.001), -0.50 +/- 0.49 D (P <.001), and -0.16 +/- 0.50 D (P =.15), respectively. The mean difference in SE between autorefraction and cycloplegic autorefraction versus subjective refraction was +0.18 +/- 0.71 D (P =.27) and +0.35 +/- 0.62 D (P =.02), respectively. The mean difference in SE between cycloplegic autorefraction and Zywave PPR with a dilated pupil was -1.44 +/- 0.79 D (P <.001). The repeatability coefficient of Zywave PPR was +/-0.25 D for SE, +/-0.29 D for sphere, and +/-0.29 D for cylinder.
CONCLUSIONS: Subjective refraction measurements are slightly more myopic than cycloplegic autorefraction measurements. With a dilated pupil, the Zywave measurements were significantly more myopic than subjective refractions and even more myopic than cycloplegic autorefractions. Zywave measurements and subjective refractions were in better agreement with a 3.5 mm pupil. The repeatability of Zywave aberrometer measurements is adequate for lower-order aberrations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12498848     DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(02)01333-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg        ISSN: 0886-3350            Impact factor:   3.351


  11 in total

1.  Average gradient of Zernike polynomials over polygons.

Authors:  Vyas Akondi; Alfredo Dubra
Journal:  Opt Express       Date:  2020-06-22       Impact factor: 3.894

2.  Higher-order aberrations when wearing sphere and toric soft contact lenses.

Authors:  David A Berntsen; Mohinder M Merchea; Kathryn Richdale; Carla J Mack; Joseph T Barr
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 1.973

3.  An evaluation of the Bausch & Lomb Zywave aberrometer.

Authors:  Michael J Dobos; Michael D Twa; Mark A Bullimore
Journal:  Clin Exp Optom       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 2.742

4.  Higher-order aberrations in myopic eyes.

Authors:  Farid Karimian; Sepehr Feizi; Azade Doozande
Journal:  J Ophthalmic Vis Res       Date:  2010-01

5.  Higher order aberrations in a normal adult population.

Authors:  Hassan Hashemi; Mehdi Khabazkhoob; Ebrahim Jafarzadehpur; Abbasali Yekta; Mohammad Hassan Emamian; Mohammad Shariati; Akbar Fotouhi
Journal:  J Curr Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-01-05

6.  Comparison of higher order wavefront aberrations with four aberrometers.

Authors:  William H Cook; James McKelvie; Henry B Wallace; Stuti L Misra
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 1.848

7.  Agreement and Repeatability of Noncycloplegic and Cycloplegic Wavefront-based Autorefraction in Children.

Authors:  Franziska G Rauscher; Heike Lange; Maryam Yahiaoui-Doktor; Helmut Tegetmeyer; Ina Sterker; Andreas Hinz; Siegfried Wahl; Peter Wiedemann; Arne Ohlendorf; Ralf Blendowske
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 1.973

8.  Customized laser vision correction for irregular cornea post-refractive surgery.

Authors:  Rohit Shetty; Vaitheeshwaran Ganesan Lalgudi; Luci Kaweri; Urvija Choudhary; Aishwariya Chabra; Krati Gupta; Pooja Khamar
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 1.848

9.  Variability of wavefront aberration measurements in small pupil sizes using a clinical Shack-Hartmann aberrometer.

Authors:  Harilaos S Ginis; Sotiris Plainis; Aristophanis Pallikaris
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-02-11       Impact factor: 2.209

10.  Assessment of subjective refraction with a clinical adaptive optics visual simulator.

Authors:  Lucía Hervella; Eloy A Villegas; Pedro M Prieto; Pablo Artal
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2018-10-08       Impact factor: 3.351

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.