Evaluation of patient visual comfort and repeatability of refractive values in non-presbyopic healthy eyes

• 作者: Ana Sanchez-Cano Carmen Lopez de la Fuente Francisco Segura Isabel Pinilla Lorena Fuentes-Broto
• 来源期刊: 国际眼科杂志：英文版
• 学科: 医学
• 关键词: 重覆性 光修正 aberrometer autorefractometer 主观折射
• 年，卷（期）: 2015,（5）
• 页码范围: 1031-1036
• 页数: 0页
• 分类号: R770.4

摘要

AIM: To evaluate the intra-operator repeatability in healthy subjects using the WAM-5500 auto-kerato/refractometer and the i Trace aberrometer, to compare the refractive values and the subjective refraction obtained with both devices and to determine which of these three spherocylindrical corrections allows the subject to achieve the best visual comfort.·METHODS: Forty-two non-presbyopic healthy eyes of42 subjects were enrolled in this prospective study.Refractive values were compared, evaluating the repeatability, the relationship between the methods and the best visual comfort obtained.·RESULTS: Sphere, cylinder and axis results showed good intraclass correlation coefficients(ICC); the highest ICC was obtained using the spherical refraction with the autorefractometer and the aberrometer, achieving levels of 0.999 and 0.998, respectively. The power vector(PV)was calculated for each refraction method, and the results indicated that there were no statistically significant differences between them(P >0.05). Direct comparison of PV measurements using the three methods showed that aberrometer refraction gave the highest values, followed by the subjective values; the autorefractometer gave the lowest values. The subjective method correction was most frequently chosen as the first selection. Equal values were found for theautorefractometer and the aberrometer as the second selection.·CONCLUSION: The i Trace aberrometer and the WAM-5500 auto-kerato/refractometer showed high levels of repeatability in healthy eyes. Refractive corrections with the aberrometer, the autorefractometer and subjective methods presented similar results, but spherocylindrical subjective correction was the most frequently selected option. These technologies can be used as complements in refractive evaluation, but they should not replace subjective refraction.