Wavefront analyzers induce instrument myopia

PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy of three wavefront analyzers versus a validated binocular open-view autorefractor in determining refractive error in non-cycloplegic eyes. METHODS: Eighty eyes were examined using the SRW-5000 open-view infrared autorefractor and, in randomized sequence, three wavefront analyzers: 1) OPD-Scan (NIDEK, Gamagori, Japan), 2) WASCA (Zeiss/Meditec, Jena, Germany), and 3) Allegretto (WaveLight Laser Technologies AG, Erlangen, Germany). Subjects were healthy adults (19 men and 21 women; mean age: 20.8 +/- 2.5 years). Refractive errors ranged from +1.5 to -9.75 diopters (D) (mean: +1.83 +/- 2.74 D) with up to 1.75 D cylinder (mean: 0.58 +/- 0.53 D). Three readings were collected per instrument by one examiner without anticholinergic agents. Refraction values were decomposed into vector components for analysis, resulting in mean spherical equivalent refraction (M) and J0 and J45 being vectors of cylindrical power at 0 degrees and 45 degrees, respectively. RESULTS: Positive correlation was observed between wavefront analyzers and the SRW-5000 for spherical equivalent refraction (OPD-Scan, r=0.959, P<.001; WASCA, r=0.981, P<.001; Allegretto, r=0.942, P<.001). Mean differences and limits of agreement showed more negative spherical equivalent refraction with wavefront analyzers (OPD-Scan, 0.406 +/- 0.768 D [range: 0.235 to 0.580 D] [P<.001]; WASCA, 0.511 +/- 0.550 D [range: 0.390 to 0.634 D] [P<.001]; and Allegretto, 0.434 +/- 0.904 D [range: 0.233 to 0.635 D] [P<.001]). A second analysis eliminating outliers showed the same trend but lower differences: OPD-Scan (n=75), 0.24 +/- 0.41 D (range: 0.15 to 0.34 D) (P<.001); WASCA (n=78), 0.46 +/- 0.47 D (range: 0.36 to 0.57 D) (P<.001); and Allegretto (n=77), 0.30 +/- 0.62 D (range: 0.16 to 0.44 D) (P<.001). No statistically significant differences were noted for J0 and J45. CONCLUSIONS: Wavefront analyzer refraction resulted in 0.30 D more myopia compared to SRW-5000 refraction in eyes without cycloplegia. This is the result of the accommodation excess attributable to instrument myopia. For the relatively low degrees of astigmatism in this study (<2.0 D), good agreement was noted between wavefront analyzers and the SRW-5000. Copyright (C) 2006 SLACK Incorporated

Microwave decontamination of eyelid warming devices for the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction

PURPOSE: The role of bacteria in meibomian gland dysfunction is unclear, yet contamination of compresses used as treatment may exacerbate this condition. This study therefore determined the effect of heating on bacteria on two forms of compress. METHODS: Cotton flannels and MGDRx EyeBags (eyebags) were inoculated by adding experimental inoculum (Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pyogenes, Pseudomonas aeruginosa; one species for each set of 3 eyebags and flannels). One of each were then randomised in to 3 groups: no heating (control); therapeutic (47.4±0.7°C); or sanitisation (68±1.1°C). After treatment, bacteria cell numbers were calculated. The experiment was repeated in triplicate. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference between each treatment with the eyebag for S. aureus (control=7.15±0.11logC/ml, therapeutic heating=5.24±0.59logC/ml, sanitisation heating=3.48±1.43logC/ml; P<0.001) and S. pyogenes (7.36±0.13, 5.73±0.26, 4.75±0.54; P<0.001). P. aeruginosa also showed a significant reduction (P<0.001) from control (6.39±0.34) to therapeutic (0.33±0.26) and sanitisation (0.33±0.21), but the latter were similar (P=1.000). For the flannels, there was significant difference between each treatment for S. aureus (6.89±0.46, 3.96±1.76, 0.42±0.90; P<0.001). For S. pyogenes, there was a significant reduction (P<0.001) from control (7.51±0.10) to therapeutic (5.91±0.62) and sanitisation (5.18±0.8), but the latter were similar (P=0.07). For P. aeruginosa, there was a significant difference (P<0.001) from control (7.15±0.36) to sanitisation (5.83±0.44); but not to therapeutic (6.84±0.31) temperatures (P=0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic heating produces a significant reduction in bacteria on the eyebags, but only sanitisation heating appears effective for flannels. However, patients should be advised to heat the eyebag to sanitisation temperatures on initial use.