Comparability and reproducibility of four wavefront aberrometers for measuring lower and higher order aberrations in pseudophakic eyes

Session Details

Session Title: Ocular Pathologies

Session Date/Time: Tuesday 08/09/2015 | 16:30-18:00

Paper Time: 17:34

Venue: Room 1

First Author: : P.Nguyen AUSTRIA

Co Author(s): :    N. Hirnschall   B. Doeller   N. Luft   O. Findl           

Abstract Details

Purpose:

To compare measurements of lower and higher order aberrations (HOA) obtained with four different wavefront aberrometers and to assess their reproducibility.

Setting:

Vienna Institute for Research in Ocular Surgery, Department of Ophthalmology, Hanusch Hospital, Vienna

Methods:

This prospective study included pseudophakic otherwise healthy patients. Four wavefront aberrometers were compared. Three of the aberrometers in this study are combined with coneal topographers. Two of the devices use a Hartmann-Shack sensor (WASCA, Carl Zeiss Meditec AG; iDesign Advanced WaveSan aberrometer, Abbott Medical Optics), one device works on the basis of ray tracing (iTrace, Tracey Technologies), one device utilizes automated retinoscopy (OPD-ScanIII; NIDEK Co. Ltd.). All patients are measured with an autorefractometer (Topcon, Japan) and also a subjective refraction has been performed. In addition a Purkinjemeter measurement has been done.

Results:

In total, 51 eyes of 51 patients were included. Mean difference concerning RMS of all HOA was 0.013µm between Wasca and iDesign and 0.039µm between Wasca and OPD. SD of 4 repeated measurements for the iTrace, WASCA, iDesign and OPD Scan concerning RMS was 0.19µm (SD:0.25), 0.03µm (SD:0.02), 0.04µm (SD:0.07) and 0.07µm (SD:0.09), respectively. This difference was found to be significant (multiple pair wised comparison with Bonferroni correction p<0.001). Same results (p<0.001) for spherical aberrations were 0.07µm (SD:0.13), 0.04µm (SD:0.04), 0.02µm (SD:0.01) and 0.03µm (SD:0.03), respectively. Details for HOA will be presented at the meeting.

Conclusions:

Feasibility was found to be excellent for Wasca and iDesign and was high for iTrace but for the OPD Scan there was a flat learning curve Reproducibility was found to be good for all devices but slightly weaker for the iTrace device.

Financial Interest:

NONE