A Comparison Between Refraction From an Adaptive Optics Visual Simulator and Clinical Refractions

Tabernero, Juan and Otero, Carles and Pardhan, Shahina (2020) A Comparison Between Refraction From an Adaptive Optics Visual Simulator and Clinical Refractions. Translational Vision Science and Technology, 9 (7). p. 23. ISSN 2164-2591

Published Version
Available under the following license: Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Download (1MB) | Preview
Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.9.7.23


Purpose: The Visual Adaptive Optics (VAO) is an adaptive optics visual simulator with an embedded Hartmann–Shack aberrometer that can give objective and subjective refraction measures. The aim of the present study was to compare the findings of the objective and subjective refractions from the VAO with a commercial autorefractometer (Topcon Corp., Tokyo, Japan) and a subjective refraction by an optometrist. The influence of age, refractive error type, and presence of ocular diseases was ascertained. Methods: The refractive error was obtained in 469 participants using the four techniques mentioned. Data were analyzed with power vectors mean spherical equivalent, the vertical Jackson-Cross-Cylinder, and the oblique Jackson-Cross-Cylinder. Age, refractive error type (myopia, emmetropia, hyperopia) and presence of ocular diseases (yes, no) were included as covariates. Agreement was assessed using the 95% interval of agreement. Results: The median spherical equivalent difference and the interval of agreement for all the participants with the VAO subjective, VAO objective, and autorefraction with the clinical subjective refraction were (+0.13, 1.80 diopters [D]), (+0.38, 1.80 D), and (−0.38, 2.10 D), respectively. When considering only healthy participants, the results were (+0.06, 1.70 D), (+0.38, 1.60 D) and (−0.25, 1.80 D), respectively. When considering only those participants with any ocular condition, the results with VAO subjective, VAO objective and autorefraction were (+0.13, 2.50 D), (+0.31, 2.70 D), and (−0.50, 4.80 D), respectively. Conclusions: The VAO subjective refraction is more accurate than VAO objective refraction and autorefraction, regardless of refractive error, age, or the presence of ocular conditions. The presence of ocular conditions significantly deteriorates the accuracy of all refraction methods. Translational Relevance: Reported clinical comparisons between different types of standard refraction methods and a new adaptive optics refraction instrument (VAO) are in good agreement and support the further development of this method to increase refraction accuracy and to refract quicker than standard procedures.

Item Type: Journal Article
Keywords: refractive error, adaptive optics, visual simulator, repeatability, agreement, wavefront sensor, autorefraction
Faculty: Faculty of Health, Education, Medicine & Social Care
Depositing User: Ian Walker
Date Deposited: 14 May 2020 16:32
Last Modified: 21 Sep 2021 15:44
URI: https://arro.anglia.ac.uk/id/eprint/705541

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item