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

Objective accommodative amplitude and dynamics with the 1CU accommodative intraocular lens

PURPOSE. To compare the objective accommodative amplitude and dynamics of eyes implanted with the one-compartment-unit (1CU; HumanOptics AG, Erlangen, Germany) accommodative intraocular lenses (IOLs) with that measured subjectively. METHODS. Twenty eyes with a 1CU accommodative IOL implanted were refracted and distance and near acuity measured with a logMAR (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution) chart. The objective accommodative stimulus-response curve for static targets between 0.17 and 4.00 D accommodative demand was measured with the SRW-5000 (Shin-Nippon Commerce Inc., Tokyo, Japan) and PowerRefractor (PlusOptiX, Nürnberg, Germany) autorefractors. Continuous objective recording of dynamic accommodation was measured with the SRW-5000, with the subject viewing a target moving from 0 to 2.50 D at 0.3 Hz through a Badal lens system. Wavefront aberrometry measures (Zywave; Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY) were made through undilated pupils. Subjective amplitude of accommodation was measured with the RAF (Royal Air Force accommodation and vergence measurement) rule. RESULTS. Four months after implantation best-corrected acuity was -0.01 ± 0.16 logMAR at distance and 0.60 ± 0.09 logMAR at near. Objectively, the static amplitude of accommodation was 0.72 ± 0.38 D. The average dynamic amplitude of accommodation was 0.71 ± 0.47 D, with a lag behind the target of 0.50 ± 0.48 seconds. Aberrometry showed a decrease in power of the lens-eye combination from the center to the periphery in all subjects (on average, -0.38 ± 0.28 D/mm). Subjective amplitude of accommodation was 2.24 ± 0.42 D. Two years after 1CU implantation, refractive error and distance visual acuity remained relatively stable, but near visual acuity, and the subjective and objective amplitudes of accommodation decreased. CONCLUSIONS. The objective accommodating effects of the 1CU lens appear to be limited, although patients are able to track a moving target. Subjective and objective accommodation was reduced at the 2-year follow-up. The greater subjective amplitude of accommodation is likely to result from the eye's depth of focus of and the aspheric nature of the IOL. Copyright © Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology.