Literature DB >> 19185244

Objective accommodation measurements in pseudophakic subjects using an autorefractor and an aberrometer.

Dorothy M Win-Hall1, Adrian Glasser.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare objective measures of accommodation with the WR-5100K autorefractor and iTrace aberrometer to subjective push-down and defocus tests in normal phakic subjects and pseudophakic subjects with standard monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs).
SETTING: University of Houston, College of Optometry, Houston, Texas, USA.
METHODS: The push-down test and defocus curves were used to stimulate and measure accommodation subjectively in pseudophakic subjects. For objective testing, a near target was pushed up and refraction measured objectively. For comparison, the same objective measurements were performed in phakic subjects. Calibration tests were performed with soft contact lenses in phakic subjects with varying refractive error and in pseudophakic subjects.
RESULTS: Fifteen phakic subjects (mean age 28.9 years+/-5.52 [SD]) and 10 pseudophakic subjects (mean age 66.2+/-11.23 years) participated. Subjectively measured accommodative amplitude in the pseudophakic group was 3.28+/-1.11 diopters (D) in the right eye and 3.64+/-1.38 D in the left eye. Defocus curves in the pseudophakic group had a range of 2.00 D for distance-corrected visual acuity of 20/40 or better. Objective measurements in the pseudophakic group were 0.11+/-0.50 D with the autorefractor and 0.10+/-0.47 D with the aberrometer. Contact lens calibrations showed good agreement with the 1:1 line.
CONCLUSIONS: The subjective tests overestimated accommodative amplitude relative to the objective measures. The autorefractor and aberrometer were accurate, reliable, and appropriate for objective accommodation measurements in pseudophakes. Objective accommodation measurements such as these can be used to evaluate the performance of accommodating IOLs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19185244      PMCID: PMC2730753          DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.10.033

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


  26 in total

1.  Dynamic measurement of accommodation and pupil size using the portable Grand Seiko FR-5000 autorefractor.

Authors:  James Stuart Wolffsohn; Kazuhiko Ukai; Bernard Gilmartin
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 1.973

2.  Meta-analysis of accommodating intraocular lenses.

Authors:  Oliver Findl; Christina Leydolt
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.351

3.  Is randomisation necessary for measuring defocus curves in pre-presbyopes?

Authors:  Navneet Gupta; Shehzad A Naroo; James S Wolffsohn
Journal:  Cont Lens Anterior Eye       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 3.077

4.  Objective accommodation measurement with the Grand Seiko and Hartinger coincidence refractometer.

Authors:  Dorothy M Win-Hall; Lisa A Ostrin; Sanjeev Kasthurirangan; Adrian Glasser
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 1.973

5.  Optical principles, biomechanics, and initial clinical performance of a dual-optic accommodating intraocular lens (an American Ophthalmological Society thesis).

Authors:  Stephen D McLeod
Journal:  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc       Date:  2006

6.  Synchrony dual-optic accommodating intraocular lens. Part 2: pilot clinical evaluation.

Authors:  Ivan L Ossma; Andrea Galvis; Luis G Vargas; Michelle J Trager; M Reza Vagefi; Stephen D McLeod
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 3.351

7.  Visual outcomes after accommodating intraocular lens implantation.

Authors:  Marian S Macsai; Lissa Padnick-Silver; Bruno M Fontes
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.351

Review 8.  Role of the tear film in the optical quality of the human eye.

Authors:  Robert Montés-Micó
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 3.351

9.  Visual performance results after Tetraflex accommodating intraocular lens implantation.

Authors:  Donald R Sanders; Monica L Sanders
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2007-03-21       Impact factor: 12.079

10.  The precision of wavefront refraction compared to subjective refraction and autorefraction.

Authors:  Konrad Pesudovs; Katrina E Parker; Han Cheng; Raymond A Applegate
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 1.973

View more
  10 in total

1.  Subjective and objective depth of field measures in pseudophakic eyes: comparison between extended depth of focus, trifocal and bifocal intraocular lenses.

Authors:  Carlos Palomino-Bautista; Rubén Sánchez-Jean; David Carmona-González; David P Piñero; Ainhoa Molina-Martín
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-10-03       Impact factor: 2.031

2.  Static and dynamic accommodation measured using the WAM-5500 Autorefractor.

Authors:  Dorothy M Win-Hall; Jamie Houser; Adrian Glasser
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 1.973

3.  One-year effect of wearing orthokeratology lenses on the visual quality of juvenile myopia: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Yewei Yin; Yang Zhao; Xiaoying Wu; Mengyang Jiang; Xiaobo Xia; Yao Chen; Weitao Song; Shengfa Hu; Xia Zhou; Kelly Young; Dan Wen
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2019-05-30       Impact factor: 2.984

4.  Tonic accommodation predicts closed-loop accommodation responses.

Authors:  Chunming Liu; Stefanie A Drew; Eric Borsting; Amy Escobar; Lawrence Stark; Christopher Chase
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2016-11-01       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  Comparison of objective accommodation in phakic and pseudophakic eyes between age groups.

Authors:  Byunghoon Chung; Seonghee Choi; Yong Woo Ji; Eung Kweon Kim; Kyoung Yul Seo; Tae-Im Kim
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-01-30       Impact factor: 3.117

6.  Factors Influencing Pseudo-Accommodation-The Difference between Subjectively Reported Range of Clear Focus and Objectively Measured Accommodation Range.

Authors:  Sandeep K Dhallu; Amy L Sheppard; Tom Drew; Toshifumi Mihashi; Juan F Zapata-Díaz; Hema Radhakrishnan; D Robert Iskander; James S Wolffsohn
Journal:  Vision (Basel)       Date:  2019-06-28

7.  Validation of Novel Metrics from the Accommodative Dynamic Profile.

Authors:  Nicola Szostek; Hetal Buckhurst; Christine Purslow; Thomas Drew; Avril Collinson; Phillip Buckhurst
Journal:  Vision (Basel)       Date:  2018-08-21

8.  A comparison of accommodation and ocular discomfort change according to display size of smart devices.

Authors:  Jeong Woo Kang; Yeoun Sook Chun; Nam Ju Moon
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-01-18       Impact factor: 2.209

9.  Objective Accommodation Amplitude Measurements Using a New Autorefractometer Device.

Authors:  Kemal Ozulken; Hasan Kiziltoprak
Journal:  Beyoglu Eye J       Date:  2019-12-25

10.  Optical aberrations, accommodation, and visual acuity with a bioanalogic continuous focus intraocular lens after cataract surgery.

Authors:  Heidar Siatiri; Mehrdad Mohammadpour; Afsaneh Gholami; Elham Ashrafi; Nassim Siatiri; Reza Mirshahi
Journal:  J Curr Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-07-29
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.