Literature DB >> 19469012

An evaluation of the Bausch & Lomb Zywave aberrometer.

Michael J Dobos1, Michael D Twa, Mark A Bullimore.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The Bausch & Lomb Zywave uses Shack-Hartmann aberrometry to determine wavefront aberrations of the human eye and provide an estimate of refractive error. We investigated the effect of pupil size on the repeatability and validity of refractive errors estimated by the Zywave and the repeatability of higher-order aberrations.
METHODS: Twenty-three subjects were measured with the Zywave under natural and cycloplegic conditions on two occasions separated by at least one week. Refractive error was also measured using a Nidek ARK-700A autorefractor. At one visit, a cycloplegic subjective refraction was performed. Measured ocular wavefront aberrations were expressed as the polynomial coefficients from a least-squares fitted fifth-order Zernike polynomial expansion over three, five and seven millimetre diameters. Repeatability and validity were evaluated by calculating the difference between pairs of refractive estimates or Zernike terms, determining the mean and standard deviation of these differences and calculating the 95% limits of agreement (LoA = mean +/-1.96 x SD).
RESULTS: The repeatability of refractive error estimated by the Zywave was better than that of the Nidek autorefractor for both manifest and cycloplegic conditions. Manipulating the pupil size on the Zywave from three to seven millimetres changed the mean cycloplegic spherical equivalent from -1.91 D to -2.60 D, a shift that was negatively correlated with spherical aberration. As expected, the magnitude of the Zernike coefficients increased with increasing pupil diameter, as did their corresponding 95% LoA. The 95% LoA decreased for higher-order terms but the magnitude of the terms and the variation between subjects also decreased with increasing order. To compensate for these factors,the ratio of the SD between sessions to the SD across subjects was calculated. The ratios were lowest for second-order terms (less than 0.08 for 7.0 mm pupil), intermediate for the C4,0 spherical aberration term (0.14) and third-order terms (approximately 0.25) but approached and exceeded 1.0 for many fourth- and fifth-order terms.
CONCLUSIONS: The Zywave provides valid and repeatable estimates of refractive error. We attribute the myopic shift for larger pupils to the eye's spherical aberration. The repeatability of the Zernike terms measured with the Zywave was acceptable for the second-order and spherical aberration terms but for other higher-order terms, the variation between sessions may exceed the variation between subjects indicating unacceptable repeatability. This may have important ramifications for wavefront-guided LASIK.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19469012      PMCID: PMC2861349          DOI: 10.1111/j.1444-0938.2009.00360.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Exp Optom        ISSN: 0816-4622            Impact factor:   2.742


  34 in total

1.  Clinical applications of the Shack-Hartmann aberrometer.

Authors:  L N Thibos; X Hong
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 1.973

2.  Wavefront-guided versus wavefront-optimized laser in situ keratomileusis: contralateral comparative study.

Authors:  Prema Padmanabhan; Michael Mrochen; Subam Basuthkar; Deepa Viswanathan; Roy Joseph
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 3.351

3.  Age-related changes in ocular aberrations with accommodation.

Authors:  Hema Radhakrishnan; W Neil Charman
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2007-05-30       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  Night vision disturbances after successful LASIK surgery.

Authors:  César Villa; Ramón Gutiérrez; José Ramón Jiménez; José Manuel González-Méijome
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2007-02-21       Impact factor: 4.638

5.  Wavefront-guided LASIK for the correction of primary myopia and astigmatism a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

Authors:  Steven C Schallhorn; Ayad A Farjo; David Huang; Brian S Boxer Wachler; William B Trattler; David J Tanzer; Parag A Majmudar; Alan Sugar
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 12.079

6.  Patient satisfaction and visual symptoms after wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized LASIK with the WaveLight platform.

Authors:  Jing Yu; Hui Chen; Fang Wang
Journal:  J Refract Surg       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 7.  Current trends in advanced surface ablation.

Authors:  William B Trattler; Scott D Barnes
Journal:  Curr Opin Ophthalmol       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 3.761

8.  Accuracy, repeatability, and clinical application of spherocylindrical automated refraction using time-based wavefront aberrometry measurements.

Authors:  Steven A Nissman; Rochelle E Tractenberg; Christopher M Saba; John C Douglas; Jay M Lustbader
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2006-03-09       Impact factor: 12.079

9.  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

Review 10.  Clinical ocular wavefront analyzers.

Authors:  Alejandro Cerviño; Sarah L Hosking; Robert Montes-Mico; Keith Bates
Journal:  J Refract Surg       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.573

View more
  6 in total

1.  Validation of refraction and anterior segment parameters by a new multi-diagnostic platform (VX120).

Authors:  Ariela Gordon-Shaag; David P Piñero; Cyril Kahloun; David Markov; Tzadok Parnes; Liat Gantz; Einat Shneor
Journal:  J Optom       Date:  2018-03-09

2.  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

3.  Repeatability of Aberrometry-Based Automated Subjective Refraction in Healthy and Keratoconus Subjects.

Authors:  Gonzalo Carracedo; Carlos Carpena-Torres; Cristina Pastrana; Ana Privado-Aroco; María Serramito; Laura Batres
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-10-30       Impact factor: 1.909

4.  Analysis of four aberrometers for evaluating lower and higher order aberrations.

Authors:  Fabiano Cade; Andrea Cruzat; Eleftherios I Paschalis; Lilian Espírito Santo; Roberto Pineda
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-01-22       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Ocular higher-order aberrations and axial eye growth in young Hong Kong children.

Authors:  Jason K Lau; Stephen J Vincent; Michael J Collins; Sin-Wan Cheung; Pauline Cho
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-04-30       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Comparison of Two Wavefront Autorefractors: Binocular Open-Field versus Monocular Closed-Field.

Authors:  Gonzalo Carracedo; Carlos Carpena-Torres; Laura Batres; Maria Serramito; Anahí Gonzalez-Bergaz
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-01-03       Impact factor: 1.909

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.