Nuria Garzón1, María García-Montero2, Esther López-Artero3, Francisco Poyales3, César Albarrán-Diego4. 1. IOA Madrid Innova Ocular, Madrid, Spain; Optometry and Vision Department, Faculty of Optics and Optometry, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: ngarzon@ioamadrid.com. 2. Optometry and Vision Department, Faculty of Optics and Optometry, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain. 3. IOA Madrid Innova Ocular, Madrid, Spain. 4. Optics, Optometry and Vision Science Department, Faculty of Physics, University of Valencia, Spain; Clínica Baviera Castellón, Castellón de la Plana, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To study the agreement between manifest refraction and objective refraction measured with two autorefractor models and an aberrometer in eyes implanted with a trifocal diffractive intraocular lens (IOL). SETTING: IOA Madrid Innova Ocular, Madrid, Spain. DESIGN: Prospective comparative cohort study. METHODS: An autorefractor keratometer (KR-8800), based on a Scheiner double pinhole, and a 3-dimension wavefront topography aberrometer system (OPD-Scan III), based on the scanning-slit retinoscopy principle, were used to obtain objective refraction readings. In addition, lower-order Zernike coefficients (Z) were used to calculate objective refraction. A set of 7 different results was obtained in power vector notation (spherical equivalent [SE], Jackson cross-cylinder, axes at 180 degrees and 90 degrees [J0] and Jackson cross-cylinder, axes at 45 degrees and 135 degrees [J45]) for 7 different methods: manifest refraction, autorefraction obtained with the autorefractor keratometer, WF-P (Z-based objective refraction for the photopic pupil), WF-M (Z-based objective refraction for the mesopic pupil), WF-4 (Z-based objective refraction for a 4.0 mm pupil), OPD-C (autorefraction measured with the 3-dimension wavefront topography aberrometer system under photopic conditions), and OPD-M (autorefraction measured with the 3-dimension wavefront topography aberrometer system under mesopic conditions). RESULTS: The study comprised 102 eyes from 51 cataract patients who underwent binocular implantation of a diffractive trifocal IOL (FineVision POD F). All 6 objective methods yielded more negative SE values than manifest refraction (P < .001). As for the astigmatism components (J0 and J45), only autorefraction (P = .003) and OPD-M (P < .001) differed significantly from manifest refraction. The best and worst correlation for the SE component were intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.70 (for WF-M) and ICC = 0.48 (for WF-4). CONCLUSION: Objective methods tend to yield more negative sphere values than manifest refraction.
PURPOSE: To study the agreement between manifest refraction and objective refraction measured with two autorefractor models and an aberrometer in eyes implanted with a trifocal diffractive intraocular lens (IOL). SETTING: IOA Madrid Innova Ocular, Madrid, Spain. DESIGN: Prospective comparative cohort study. METHODS: An autorefractor keratometer (KR-8800), based on a Scheiner double pinhole, and a 3-dimension wavefront topography aberrometer system (OPD-Scan III), based on the scanning-slit retinoscopy principle, were used to obtain objective refraction readings. In addition, lower-order Zernike coefficients (Z) were used to calculate objective refraction. A set of 7 different results was obtained in power vector notation (spherical equivalent [SE], Jackson cross-cylinder, axes at 180 degrees and 90 degrees [J0] and Jackson cross-cylinder, axes at 45 degrees and 135 degrees [J45]) for 7 different methods: manifest refraction, autorefraction obtained with the autorefractor keratometer, WF-P (Z-based objective refraction for the photopic pupil), WF-M (Z-based objective refraction for the mesopic pupil), WF-4 (Z-based objective refraction for a 4.0 mm pupil), OPD-C (autorefraction measured with the 3-dimension wavefront topography aberrometer system under photopic conditions), and OPD-M (autorefraction measured with the 3-dimension wavefront topography aberrometer system under mesopic conditions). RESULTS: The study comprised 102 eyes from 51 cataractpatients who underwent binocular implantation of a diffractive trifocal IOL (FineVision POD F). All 6 objective methods yielded more negative SE values than manifest refraction (P < .001). As for the astigmatism components (J0 and J45), only autorefraction (P = .003) and OPD-M (P < .001) differed significantly from manifest refraction. The best and worst correlation for the SE component were intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.70 (for WF-M) and ICC = 0.48 (for WF-4). CONCLUSION: Objective methods tend to yield more negative sphere values than manifest refraction.