Comparison of the Correlations and Differences between the Autorefraction Measured by OPD-Scan III and Non-Cycloplegic Subjective Refraction
You Yuan1 , Panpan Li2 , Mengyu Wang1 , Xiaobo Huang2 , Yu Song2 , E Song1
1 Department of Ophthalmology, the Ideal Ophthalmology Hospital Affiliated to Soochow University, Suzhou 215000, China 2 Department of Ophthalmology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, Nantong 226001, China
To compare the correlations and differences between autorefraction measured by OPDScan III in light and dark modes with non-cycloplegic subjective refraction. Methods: This was a series of case studies. One hundred and two patients (204 eyes) with refractive errors were selected from the Ideal Ophthalmology Hospital affiliated to Soochow University during July 2018. All patients underwent autorefraction with OPD-Scan III and subjective refraction with a competent optometrist. Statistical analyses and comparisons were made on spherical (S), cylinder (C), spherical equivalent (SE), J0 (Jackson cross-cylindervalues at 180° and 90°) and J45 (Jackson cross-cylindervalues at 135° and 45°). Data were statistically analyzed using a t test, regression test and Pearson correlation. Results: The values of S, C, SE, J0 and J45 measured under OPD-Scan III light mode were positively correlated with those measured by subjective optometry (r=0.797, 0.877, 0.806, 0.918, 0.623, all P<0.001). All the measurements showed statistically significant differences. The values of S, C and SE measured under OPD-Scan III illumination were -0.33 D, -0.08 D, and -0.37 D were higher than those measured under subjective optometry, and the differences were statistically significant between the two measurements (t=4.232, 3.058, 4.741, all P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference for J0 but J45 showed a statistically significant difference (t=-2.342, P=0.021). The values of S, C, SE, J0, and J45 measured under OPD-Scan III dark light mode were positively correlated with the values measured by subjective optometry (r=0.877, 0.629, 0.894, 0.753, 0.466, all P<0.001). The values of S, C and SE measured by OPD-Scan III under dark light were higher than those measured by subjective optometry, -0.57 D, -0.41 D, and -0.77 D, respectively, and the differences were statistically significant between the two measurements (t=8.864, 8.777, 3.263, all P<0.001). There was no statistically significant difference for J0 and J45. Conclusions: The correlations and differences between the autorefractions measured by OPD-Scan III in light and dark mode with subjective refraction showed statistical significance. But the difference between autorefraction measured by OPDScan III in light mode and subjective optometry is small, which is acceptable in the clinic
袁幽1 李盼盼2 王梦雨1 黄晓波2 宋愈2 宋鄂1. OPD-Scan Ⅲ自动验光与非睫状肌麻痹下主觉验光的比较[J]. 中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志, 2019, 21(12): 895-899.
You Yuan1,Panpan Li2,Mengyu Wang1,Xiaobo Huang2,Yu Song2,E Song1. Comparison of the Correlations and Differences between the Autorefraction Measured by OPD-Scan III and Non-Cycloplegic Subjective Refraction. Chinese Journal of Optometry Ophthalmology and Visual science, 2019, 21(12): 895-899. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-845X.2019.12.003
Pascolini D, Mariotti SP. Global estimates of visual impairment: 2010. Br J Ophthalmol, 2012, 96(5): 614-618. DOI: 10.1136/ bjophthalmol-2011-300539.
[2]
Zhu R, Long KL, Wu XM, et al. Comparison of the VISX wavescan and OPD-scan Ⅲ with the subjective refraction. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci, 2016, 20(14): 2988-2992.
[3]
McGinnigle S, Naroo SA, Eperjesi F. Evaluation of the autorefraction function of the Nidek OPD-Scan Ⅲ. Clin Exp Optom, 2014, 97(2): 160-163. DOI: 10.1111/cxo.12109.
[4]
Hamer CA, Buckhurst H, Purslow C, et al. Comparison of reliability and repeatability of corneal curvature assessment with six keratometers. Clin Exp Optom, 2016, 99(6): 583-589. DOI: 10.1111/cxo.12329.
[5]
Asgari S, Hashemi H. OPD scan Ⅲ accuracy: Topographic and aberrometric indices after accelerated corneal cross-linking. J Curr Ophthalmol, 2018, 30(1): 58-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.joco.2017. 09.004.
[6]
He W, Qiu X, Zhang S, et al. Comparison of long-term decentration and tilt in two types of multifocal intraocular lenses with OPDScan Ⅲ aberrometer. Eye (Lond), 2018, 32(7): 1237-1243. DOI: 10.1038/s41433-018-0068-5.
[7]
Asgari S, Hashemi H, Jafarzadehpur E, et al. OPD-Scan Ⅲ: a repeatability and inter-device agreement study of a multifunctional device in emmetropia, ametropia, and keratoconus. Int Ophthalmol, 2016, 36(5): 697-705. DOI: 10.1007/s10792-016-0189-4.
[8]
Guilbert E, Saad A, Gatinel D. AcuTarget measurements: repeatability and comparison to OPD-Scan Ⅲ. J Refract Surg, 2014, 30(3): 180-185. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20140217-05.
[9]
Kim DS, Narváez J, Krassin J, et al. Comparison of the VISX wavescan and NIDEK OPD-scan aberrometers. J Refract Surg, 2009, 25(5): 429-434. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20090422-05.
[10]
Thibos LN, Wheeler W, Horner D. Power vectors: An application of Fourier analysis to the description and statistical analysis of refractive error. Optom Vis Sci, 1997, 74(6): 367-375. DOI: 10.1097/00006324-199706000-00019.
Winn B, Pugh JR, Gilmartin B, et al. The effect of pupil size on static and dynamic measurements of accommodation using an infra-red optometer. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 1989, 9(3): 277- 283.
浙公网安备 33030202001892号