Seyhan Yazar1, Alex W Hewitt2, Hannah Forward2, Charlotte M McKnight2, Alex Tan2, Jenny A Mountain2, David A Mackey2. 1. From the University of Western Australia Centre for Ophthalmology and Visual Science and Lions Eye Institute(Yazar, Hewitt, Forward, McKnight, Tan, Mackey) and the Telethon Institute for Child Health Research (Mountain), Perth, Western Australia, Australia. Electronic address: seyhanyazar@lei.org.au. 2. From the University of Western Australia Centre for Ophthalmology and Visual Science and Lions Eye Institute(Yazar, Hewitt, Forward, McKnight, Tan, Mackey) and the Telethon Institute for Child Health Research (Mountain), Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the monochromatic aberrations in a large cohort of 20-year-old Australians with differing levels of visual acuity and explore the relationship between these aberrations and refractive error. SETTING: Lions Eye Institute, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of a population-based cohort. METHODS: Monochromatic aberrations were measured using a Zywave II wavefront aberrometer with natural pupils in a dark room. The logMAR corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was measured monocularly under normal illumination. Cycloplegic autorefraction was also performed. RESULTS: The study enrolled 2039 eyes of 1040 participants. Data from 1007 right eyes were analyzed. The median CDVA and spherical equivalent were -0.06 logMAR (interquartile range [IQR], -0.10 to 0.00) and +0.25 diopters (D) (IQR, -0.38 to 0.63), respectively. The median 6.0 mm higher-order aberration (HOA) was 0.58 μm (IQR, 0.44 to 0.79). Coma-like aberrations and 3rd-, 4th-, and 5th-order HOAs were significantly different between subjects with a CDVA of -0.10 logMAR or better and those with a CDVA worse than -0.10 logMAR. Fourth-order aberrations Z(4,-4) (P=.024) and Z(4,-2) (P=.029) and 2nd-order aberration Z(2,0) (P<.001) differed significantly between myopic eyes, emmetropic eyes, and hyperopic eyes. Subjects with higher myopia had slightly higher total HOAs. CONCLUSIONS: The HOAs in this population were marginally higher than previously reported values. The findings confirm there is a difference in monochromatic aberrations between different vision and refractive groups. Results in this study will benefit decision-making processes in the clinical setting.
PURPOSE: To compare the monochromatic aberrations in a large cohort of 20-year-old Australians with differing levels of visual acuity and explore the relationship between these aberrations and refractive error. SETTING:Lions Eye Institute, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of a population-based cohort. METHODS: Monochromatic aberrations were measured using a Zywave II wavefront aberrometer with natural pupils in a dark room. The logMAR corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was measured monocularly under normal illumination. Cycloplegic autorefraction was also performed. RESULTS: The study enrolled 2039 eyes of 1040 participants. Data from 1007 right eyes were analyzed. The median CDVA and spherical equivalent were -0.06 logMAR (interquartile range [IQR], -0.10 to 0.00) and +0.25 diopters (D) (IQR, -0.38 to 0.63), respectively. The median 6.0 mm higher-order aberration (HOA) was 0.58 μm (IQR, 0.44 to 0.79). Coma-like aberrations and 3rd-, 4th-, and 5th-order HOAs were significantly different between subjects with a CDVA of -0.10 logMAR or better and those with a CDVA worse than -0.10 logMAR. Fourth-order aberrations Z(4,-4) (P=.024) and Z(4,-2) (P=.029) and 2nd-order aberration Z(2,0) (P<.001) differed significantly between myopic eyes, emmetropic eyes, and hyperopic eyes. Subjects with higher myopia had slightly higher total HOAs. CONCLUSIONS: The HOAs in this population were marginally higher than previously reported values. The findings confirm there is a difference in monochromatic aberrations between different vision and refractive groups. Results in this study will benefit decision-making processes in the clinical setting.
Authors: Santiago Delgado-Tirado; Alberto López-Miguel; Yazmin Báez-Peralta; Lucía González-Buendía; Itziar Fernández; Jorge L Alió; Miguel J Maldonado; Rosa M Coco-Martín Journal: BMC Ophthalmol Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 2.209
Authors: Samantha Sze-Yee Lee; Gareth Lingham; Seyhan Yazar; Paul G Sanfilippo; Jason Charng; Fred K Chen; Alex W Hewitt; Fletcher Ng; Christopher Hammond; Leon M Straker; Peter R Eastwood; Stuart MacGregor; Kathryn A Rose; Robyn M Lucas; Jeremy A Guggenheim; Seang-Mei Saw; Minas T Coroneo; Mingguang He; David A Mackey Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-03-25 Impact factor: 2.692