Clinical evaluation of the repeatability of ocular aberrometry obtained with a new pyramid wavefront sensor

Abstract

Purpose:

To evaluate the intrasubject repeatability of the ocular aberrometry obtained with a new ocular pyramidal aberrometer technology in a sample of normal eyes.

Methods:

A total of 53 healthy eyes of 53 subjects with ages ranging from 18 to 45 years were included in this study. In all cases, three consecutive acquisitions were obtained. Intrasubject repeatability of the measurements with a pyramidal aberrometer was calculated. Intrasubject repeatability for 4.0- and 6.0-mm pupils was evaluated within the subject standard deviation (S_w) and intraclass correlation coefficient.

Results:

Low values of the S_w and intraclass correlation coefficient outcomes close to 1 were observed for the sphere and cylinder at 3.0-mm pupil size. Most low S_w and intraclass correlation coefficient values close to 1 were observed for total, low-order aberrations and higher-order aberrations root mean square and for each Zernike coefficient analysis (intraclass correlation coefficient ⩾0.798) at 4.0-mm pupil size, with more limited outcomes for the aberrometric coefficient of Z(4, 4) with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.683. For a 6.0 mm pupil diameter, low S_w and intraclass correlation coefficient values close to 1 were observed for all aberrometric parameters or Zernike coefficients analyzed (intraclass correlation coefficient ⩾0.850).

Conclusion:

The new pyramidal aberrometer Osiris provides repeatable and consistent measurements of ocular aberrometry measurements in normal eyes.

Keywords

Ocular aberrometry pyramidal aberrometer intrasubject repeatability

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Thibos

LN.

Retinal image quality for virtual eyes generated by a statistical model of ocular wavefront aberrations. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2009; 29(3): 288–291.

Marcos

Aberrometry: basic science and clinical applications. Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol 2006; 302: 197–213.

Alio

Pinero

Espinosa

, et al. Corneal aberrations and objective visual quality after hyperopic laser in situ keratomileusis using the Esiris excimer laser. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008; 34(3): 398–406.

Alio

Pinero

Plaza-Puche

AB.

Corneal wavefront-guided photorefractive keratectomy in patients with irregular corneas after corneal refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008; 34(10): 1727–1735.

Schallhorn

Venter

Hannan

, et al. Outcomes of wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis using a new-generation Hartmann-Shack aberrometer in patients with high myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 2015; 41(9): 1810–1819.

Smadja

Santhiago

Tellouck

, et al. Safety and efficacy of wavefront-guided myopic laser in situ keratomileusis using a new wavefront sensor technology: first 100 cases. J Cataract Refract Surg 2015; 41(8): 1588–1593.

Hwang

Park

YG.

Wavefront-guided versus wavefront-optimized laser in situ keratomileusis for patients with myopia: a prospective randomized contralateral eye study. Am J Ophthalmol 2014; 158(6): 1356–1357.

Feng

Wang

. Meta-analysis of wavefront-guided vs. wavefront-optimized LASIK for myopia. Optom Vis Sci 2011; 88(12): 1463–1469.

Kim

Chuck

RS.

Wavefront-guided customized corneal ablation. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2008; 19(4): 314–320.

10.

Liang

Grimm

Goelz

, et al. Objective measurement of wave aberrations of the human eye with the use of a Hartmann-Shack wave-front sensor. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 1994; 11(7): 1949–1957.

11.

Molebny

Panagopoulou

Molebny

, et al. Principles of ray tracing aberrometry. J Refract Surg 2000; 16(5): S572–S575.

12.

Mrochen

Kaemmerer

Mierdel

, et al. Principles of Tscherning aberrometry. J Refract Surg 2000; 16(5): S570–S571.

13.

Rozema

VanDyck

Tassignon

MJ.

Clinical comparison of 6 aberrometers. Part 1: technical specifications. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005; 31(6): 1114–1127.

14.

Rozema

VanDyck

Tassignon

MJ.

Clinical comparison of 6 aberrometers. Part 2: statistical comparison in a test group. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006; 32(1): 33–44.

15.

Chamot

Dainty

Esposito

Adaptive optics for ophthalmic applications using a pyramid wavefront sensor. Opt Express 2006; 14(2): 518–526.

16.

Carkeet

Velaedan

Tan

, et al. Higher order ocular aberrations after cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic pupil dilation. J Refract Surg 2003; 19(3): 316–322.

17.

Bland

Altman

DG.

Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1(8476): 307–310.

18.

Bland

Altman

DG.

Measurement error. BMJ 1996; 313: 744.

19.

Bland

Altman

DG.

Measurement error and correlation coefficients. BMJ 1996; 313(7048): 41–42.

20.

Cervino

Hosking

Montes-Mico

, et al. Clinical ocular wavefront analyzers. J Refract Surg 2007; 23(6): 603–616.

21.

Charman

Montes-Mico

Radhakrishnan

Problems in the measurement of wavefront aberration for eyes implanted with diffractive bifocal and multifocal intraocular lenses. J Refract Surg 2008; 24(3): 280–286.

22.

Lackner

Schmidinger

Pieh

, et al. Repeatability and reproducibility of central corneal thickness measurement with Pentacam, Orbscan, and ultrasound. Optom Vis Sci 2005; 82(10): 892–899.

23.

Otero

Vilaseca

Arjona

, et al. Repeatability of aberrometric measurements with a new instrument for vision analysis based on adaptive optics. J Refract Surg 2015; 31(3): 188–194.

24.

Piñero

Sanchez-Perez

Alio

JL.

Repeatability of measurements obtained with a ray tracing aberrometer. Optom Vis Sci 2011; 88(9): 1099–1105.

25.

Gabriel

Klaproth

Titke

, et al. Repeatability of topographic and aberrometric measurements at different accommodative states using a combined topographer and open-view aberrometer. J Cataract Refract Surg 2015; 41(4): 806–811.

26.

Dobos

Twa

Bullimore

MA.

An evaluation of the Bausch & Lomb Zywave aberrometer. Clin Exp Optom 2009; 92: 238–245.

27.

Visser

Berendschot

Verbakel

, et al. Evaluation of the comparability and repeatability of four wavefront aberrometers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52(3): 1302–1311.

28.

López-Miguel

Maldonado

Belzunce

, et al. Precision of a commercial Hartmann-Shack aberrometer: limits of total wavefront laser vision correction. Am J Ophthalmol 2012; 154(5): 799–807.e5.

29.

Shetty

Kochar

Grover

, et al. Repeatability of a commercially available adaptive optics visual simulator and aberrometer in normal and keratoconic eyes. J Refract Surg 2017; 33(11): 769–772.

30.

Barreto

Jr Netto

Cigna

, et al. Precision of higher order aberration repeatability with NIDEK OPD-scan retinoscopic aberrometry. J Refract Surg 2006; 22(Suppl. 9): S1037–S1040.

31.

Pinero

Juan

Alio

JL.

Intrasubject repeatability of internal aberrometry obtained with a new integrated aberrometer. J Refract Surg 2011; 27(7): 509–517.

32.

Hagyo

Csakany

Lang

, et al. Variability of higher order wavefront aberrations after blinks. J Refract Surg 2009; 25(1): 59–68.

33.

Montes-Mico

Caliz

Alio

JL.

Wavefront analysis of higher order aberrations in dry eye patients. J Refract Surg 2004; 20(3): 243–247.

34.

Guirao

Williams

Cox

IG.

Effect of rotation and translation on the expected benefit of an ideal method to correct the eye’s higher-order aberrations. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 2001; 18(5): 1003–1015.

35.

Leahy

Leroux

Dainty

, et al. Temporal dynamics and statistical characteristics of the microfluctuations of accommodation: dependence on the mean accommodative effort. Opt Express 2010; 18(3): 2668–2681.