PURPOSE: To compare and mutually validate the measurements of 6 aberrometers: the Visual Function Analyzer (Tracey), the OPD-Scan (ARK-10000, Nidek), the Zywave (Bausch & Lomb), the WASCA (Carl Zeiss Meditec), the MultiSpot Hartmann-Shack device, and the Allegretto Wave Analyzer. SETTING: University Hospital Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium. METHODS: This prospective study was conducted on a group of 44 healthy eyes with refractions ranging from -5.25 diopters (D) to +5.25 D (cylinder 0 to -2 D). For each aberrometer and each eye, the averaged Zernike data were used to calculate various kinds of root-mean-square (RMS). These parameters, together with the refractive parameters, were then analyzed with a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, complemented by paired t tests. A similar analysis was done for the comparison of the variances of these parameters. RESULTS: The aberrometers gave comparable values for all studied parameters with the following exceptions: The OPD-Scan underestimated the polynomials describing 4- and 5-fold symmetries, and the Visual Function Analyzer slightly overestimated the astigmatism terms. The 3rd-order radial RMS value was different for each device, as well as the RMS in the central 2.0 mm zone. The WASCA presented the lowest variance. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that in healthy eyes, all aberrometers produced globally similar results but they may vary in some details.
PURPOSE: To compare and mutually validate the measurements of 6 aberrometers: the Visual Function Analyzer (Tracey), the OPD-Scan (ARK-10000, Nidek), the Zywave (Bausch & Lomb), the WASCA (Carl Zeiss Meditec), the MultiSpot Hartmann-Shack device, and the Allegretto Wave Analyzer. SETTING: University Hospital Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium. METHODS: This prospective study was conducted on a group of 44 healthy eyes with refractions ranging from -5.25 diopters (D) to +5.25 D (cylinder 0 to -2 D). For each aberrometer and each eye, the averaged Zernike data were used to calculate various kinds of root-mean-square (RMS). These parameters, together with the refractive parameters, were then analyzed with a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, complemented by paired t tests. A similar analysis was done for the comparison of the variances of these parameters. RESULTS: The aberrometers gave comparable values for all studied parameters with the following exceptions: The OPD-Scan underestimated the polynomials describing 4- and 5-fold symmetries, and the Visual Function Analyzer slightly overestimated the astigmatism terms. The 3rd-order radial RMS value was different for each device, as well as the RMS in the central 2.0 mm zone. The WASCA presented the lowest variance. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that in healthy eyes, all aberrometers produced globally similar results but they may vary in some details.
Authors: Colm McAlinden; Jonathan E Moore; Victoria E McGilligan; Tara C B Moore Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2010-08-06 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: M J Sanchez; A Mannsfeld; A F M Borkenstein; A Ehmer; I-J Limberger; M P Holzer; G U Auffarth Journal: Ophthalmologe Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 1.059