i.Profiler和iTrace波前像差仪测量健康人眼波前像差的一致性

doi:10.3760/cma.j.cn115909-20200525-00217

摘要
图/表
参考文献(29)
相关文章 (13)

全文: PDF 1250KB HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS) 背景资料

文章导读

摘要目的：评价i.Profiler和iTrace波前像差仪测量健康人眼波前像差的一致性，分析角膜高阶像差与瞳孔直径的相关性。方法：系列病例研究。连续纳入健康青年受检者96例（96眼），采用i.Profiler和iTrace 进行波前像差测量，参数包括2～6 mm瞳孔直径下角膜和3、5 mm瞳孔直径下全眼高阶像差，包括总高阶像差（tHOA）、球差（Z40 ）、彗差（Z3 -1、Z31 ）和三叶草像差（Z3 -3、Z33 ）。采用配对t检验、Pearson 相关、Bland-Altman散点图、一致性界限（95%LoA）分析2种设备测量结果的一致性。结果：i.Profiler 和iTrace测量角膜和全眼tHOA、Z40、Z3 -1、Z31、Z3 -3和Z33的95%LoA均小于0.1 μm，显示一致性较好。 i.Profiler和iTrace在4 mm瞳孔直径下测得的角膜Z40 分别为（0.049±0.016）μm和（0.048±0.016）μm； 6 mm瞳孔直径下，角膜Z40 分别为（0.270±0.040）μm和（0.266±0.037）μm。2～6 mm瞳孔直径下， i.Profiler测量的角膜tHOA、Z40、Z3 -1、Z31、Z3 -3和Z33 与瞳孔直径呈高度相关（r=0.960、0.916、0.978、0.970、 0.982、0.984，均P<0.05）；iTrace测量的角膜高阶像差与瞳孔直径也呈高度相关（r=0.960、0.916、0.983、 0.970、0.984、0.969，均P<0.05）。3 mm和5 mm瞳孔直径下，i.Profiler测量的全眼Z40 分别为（0.010± 0.008）μm和（0.073±0.052）μm，角膜Z40 分别为（0.016±0.007）μm和（0.116±0.031）μm，同一瞳孔直径下，全眼Z40 小于角膜Z40。结论：i.Profiler和iTrace测量角膜和全眼高阶像差值具有良好一致性，二者的高阶像差测量值方面可以相互参考。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章

关键词 ：

font-size:9pt, font-family:Times New Roman, color:rgb(35, 31, 32), i.Profiler')" href="#">">i.Profiler, iTrace')" href="#">">iTrace, 一致性')" href="#">">一致性, 角膜像差')" href="#">">角膜像差, 全眼像差')" href="#">">全眼像差, 瞳孔直径

')" href="#">">瞳孔直径

Abstract： Objective: To evaluate the agreement between the i.Profiler and iTrace aberrometers for measuring wavefront aberrations in healthy young eyes and the correlation between corneal aberration and pupil diameter. Methods: Ninety-six healthy young eyes of 96 healthy young persons were examined by the i.Profiler and iTrace in this diagnostic test study. Corneal (2-6 mm pupil diameter) and ocular (3 mm and 5 mm pupil diameters) higher-order aberrations, including total higher-order aberrations (tHOA), fourth order (Z40 ) spherical aberration (SA), vertical coma (Z3 -1), horizontal coma (Z31 ), vertical trefoil (Z3 -3),and horizontal trefoil (Z33 ), were measured. Agreement between the two aberrometers was evaluated by a t-test, Pearson correlation, Bland-Altman and 95% limits of agreement (95%LoA). Results: The 95%LoA of the higher-order aberrations measured by i.Profiler and iTrace were relatively narrow, showing good agreement. At a 4 mm pupil diameter, corneal Z40 measured by i.Profiler and iTrace were 0.049±0.016 μm and 0.048±0.016 μm, respectively. At a 6 mm pupil diameter, corneal Z40 were 0.270±0.040 μm and 0.266±0.037 μm, respectively. At a 2-6 mm pupil diameter, corneal tHOA, SA (Z40 ), (Z3 -1), (Z31 ), (Z3-3) and (Z33 ) increased with an increase in pupil diameter. The corresponding correlation coefficients between corneal higher-order aberrations and pupil diameter were 0.960, 0.916, 0.978, 0.970, 0.982 and 0.984 when using i.Profiler (all P<0.05), and the counterparts were 0.960, 0.916, 0.983, 0.970, 0.984 and 0.969 when using iTrace (all P<0.05). At 3 mm and 5 mm pupil diameters, the measured ocular Z40 were 0.010±0.008 μm and 0.073±0.052 μm, respectively, which were smaller than corneal Z40 (0.016±0.007 μm and 0.116±0.031 μm) when using i.Profiler. Conclusions: The i.Profiler and iTrace show good agreement in measuring wavefront aberrations in healthy young eyes.

Key words： i.Profiler iTrace agreement corneal aberration ocular aberration pupil diameter

收稿日期: 2020-05-25

PACS:

基金资助: 四川省卫计委重点课题项目（18ZD022）；南充市校合作重大攻关项目（18SXHZ0492）

通讯作者: 兰长骏（ORCID：0000-0002-1040-9622），Email：lanchangjun@sina.com

引用本文:

王梅洁廖萱谭青青兰长骏. i.Profiler和iTrace波前像差仪测量健康人眼波前像差的一致性[J]. 中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志, 2021, 23(1): 19-26. Meijie Wang, Xuan Liao, Qingqing Tan, Changjun Lan. Agreement between the i.Profiler and iTrace Aberrometers for Measuring the Wavefront Aberrations in Healthy Eyes of Young People. Chinese Journal of Optometry Ophthalmology and Visual science, 2021, 23(1): 19-26. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115909-20200525-00217

链接本文:

https://www.cjoovs.com/CN/10.3760/cma.j.cn115909-20200525-00217 或 https://www.cjoovs.com/CN/Y2021/V23/I1/19

[1]	Schrecker J, Schröder S, Langenbucher A, et al. Individually customized IOL versus standard spherical aberrationcorrecting IOL. J Refract Surg, 2019, 35(9): 565-574. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20190814-02.
[2]	Marín-Franch I, Xu R, Bradley A, et al. The effect of spherical aberration on visual performance and refractive state for stimuli and tasks typical of night viewing. J Optom, 2018, 11(3): 144- 152. DOI: 10.1016/j.optom.2017.10.003.
[3]	Liao X, Huang XQ, Lan CJ, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of retinal image quality in comparing different aspheric to spherical intraocular lens implants. Curr Eye Res, 2019, 44(10): 1098- 1103. DOI: 10.1080/02713683.2019.1615512.
[4]	Hartwig A, Atchison DA, Radhakrishnan H. Higher-order aberrations and anisometropia. Curr Eye Res, 2013, 38(1): 215- 219. DOI: 10.3109/02713683.2012.738462.
[5]	Putnam NM, Vasudevan B, Juarez A, et al. Comparing habitual and i.Scription refractions. BMC Ophthalmol, 2019, 19(1): 49. DOI: 10.1186/s12886-019-1053-x.
[6]	Lebow KA, Campbell CE. A comparison of a traditional and wavefront autorefraction. Optom Vis Sci, 2014, 91(10): 1191- 1198. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000378.
[7]	Rauscher FG, Lange H, Yahiaoui-Doktor M, et al. Agreement and repeatability of noncycloplegic and cycloplegic wavefrontbased autorefraction in children. Optom Vis Sci, 2019, 96(11): 879-889. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001444.
[8]	Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 1986, 327(8476): 307-310.
[9]	Durán JA, Gutiérrez E, Atienza R, et al. Vector analysis of astigmatic changes and optical quality outcomes after wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis using a highresolution aberrometer. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2017, 43(12): 1515-1522. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.08.020.
[10]	Jung HH, Ji YS, Oh HJ, et al. Higher order aberrations of the corneal surface after laser subepithelial keratomileusis. Korean J Ophthalmol, 2014, 28(4): 285-291. DOI: 10.3341/ kjo.2014.28.4.285.
[11]	Bohac M, Koncarevic M, Dukic A, et al. Unwanted astigmatism and high-order aberrations one year after excimer and femtosecond corneal surgery. Optom Vis Sci, 2018, 95(11): 1064-1076. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001298.
[12]	中华医学会眼科学分会白内障及人工晶状体学组. 中国多焦点人工晶状体临床应用专家共识(2019 年). 中华眼科杂志, 2019, 55(7): 491-494. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0412-4081. 2019.07.003.
[13]	陈茹茹, 陈岩, 廉恒丽. 角膜像差与角膜前表面Q值对角膜塑形术近视控制的影响. 中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志, 2016, 18(2): 78-82. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-845X.2016.02.004.
[14]	Yin Y, Zhao Y, Wu X, et al. One-year effect of wearing orthokeratology lenses on the visual quality of juvenile myopia: a retrospective study. Peer J, 2019, 7: 6998. DOI: 10.7717/ peerj.6998.
[15]	Naderan M, Jahanrad A, Farjadnia M. Ocular, corneal, and internal aberrations in eyes with keratoconus, forme fruste keratoconus, and healthy eyes. Int Ophthalmol, 2018, 38(4): 1565-1573. DOI: 10.1007/s10792-017-0620-5.
[16]	崔乐乐, 李明, 沈梅晓, 等. Zernike多项式分析全角膜前后表面和厚度三维不规则分布在圆锥角膜诊断中的价值. 中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志, 2017, 19(5): 285-290. DOI: 10.3760/ cma.j.issn.1674-845X.2017.05.006.
[17]	Koh S. Irregular astigmatism and higher-order aberrations in eyes with dry eye disease. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2018, 59(14): 36-40. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.17-23500.
[18]	Hoshing A, Samant M, Bhosale S, et al. Comparison of higher order aberrations in amblyopic and non-amblyopic eyes in pediatric patients with anisometropic amblyopia. Indian J Ophthalmol, 2019, 67(7): 1025-1029. DOI: 10.1167/ iovs.17-23500.
[19]	Hua Y, Xu Z, Qiu W, et al. Precision (repeatability and reproducibility) and agreement of corneal power measurements obtained by Topcon KR-1W and iTrace. PLoS One, 2016, 11(1): e0147086. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147086.
[20]	Applegate RA, Donnelly WJ, Marsack JD, et al. Threedimensional relationship between high-order root-mean-square wavefront error, pupil diameter, and aging. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis, 2007, 24(3): 578-587. DOI: 10.1364/ JOSAA.24.000578.
[21]	Xu Z, Hua Y, Qiu W, et al. Precision and agreement of higher order aberrations measured with ray tracing and HartmannShack aberrometers. BMC Ophthalmol, 2018, 18(1): 18. DOI:10.1186/s12886-018-0683-8.
[22]	Rodríguez P, Navarro R, González L, et al. Accuracy and reproducibility of Zywave, Tracey, and experimental aberrometers. J Refract Surg, 2004, 20(6): 810-817.
[23]	Visser N, Berendschot TT, Verbakel F, et al. Evaluation of the comparability and repeatability of four wavefront aberrometers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2011, 52(3): 1302-1311. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.10-5841.
[24]	Yi F, Iskander DR, Collins MJ. Estimation of the depth of focus from wavefront measurements. J Vis, 2010, 10(4): 3-9. DOI: 10.1167/10.4.3.
[25]	Tan QQ, Lin J, Tian J, et al. Objective optical quality in eyes with customized selection of aspheric intraocular lens implantation. BMC Ophthalmol, 2019, 19(1): 152. DOI: 10.1186/s12886-019-1162-6.
[26]	Gatinel D, Adam PA, Chaabouni S, et al. Comparison of corneal and total ocular aberrations before and after myopic LASIK. J Refract Surg, 2010, 26(5): 333-340. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X- 20090617-01.
[27]	Kelly JE, Mihashi T, Howland HC. Compensation of corneal horizontal/vertical astigmatism, lateral coma and spherical aberration by internal optics of the eye. J Vis, 2004, 4(4): 262- 271. DOI: 10.1167/4.4.2.
[28]	Oshika T, Klyce SD, Applegate RA, et al. Changes in corneal wavefront aberrations with aging. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 1999, 40(7): 1351-1355.
[29]	Moreno-Barriuso E, Navarro R. Laser ray tracing versus Hartmann-Shack sensor for measuring optical aberrations in the human eye. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis, 2000, 17(6): 974-985. DOI: 10.1364/josaa.17.000974.