优化巩膜晶状体处方:不规则角膜屈光和过度屈光的比较。

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Rafaela S Alves-de-Carvalho, Rute J Macedo-de-Araújo, José M González-Méijome
{"title":"优化巩膜晶状体处方:不规则角膜屈光和过度屈光的比较。","authors":"Rafaela S Alves-de-Carvalho, Rute J Macedo-de-Araújo, José M González-Méijome","doi":"10.1016/j.clae.2025.102485","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the accuracy and consistency of subjective refraction using conventional methods versus an algorithm-based approach in patients with primary or secondary corneal irregularities, both with and without scleral lenses (SL).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Nineteen eyes of ten subjects with irregular corneas underwent non-cycloplegic refraction using (I) retinoscopy followed by conventional subjective refraction (Conventional Refraction) to achieve maximum visual acuity with the maximum positive prescription, and (II) a Hartmann-Shack wavefront aberrometer (WAM 800) followed by an algorithm-based semi-automatic phoropter (Vision-R 800). Refraction measurements were conducted with both techniques, without and with SLs. Outcomes included spherical equivalent (M) and astigmatic components (J0 and J45), and monocular high and low-contrast visual acuity (HCVA and LCVA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Without SLs, the mean difference in the spherical equivalent between methods was -0.80 ± 1.20 D (p = 0.001). With SLs, the mean difference was -1.04 ± 0.93 D (p = 0.001). Without SLs, monocular HCVA was 0.21 ± 0.20 LogMAR (range: -0.10 to 0.76) and 0.17 ± 0.14 LogMAR (range: -0.02 to 0.60) for Conventional Refraction and V-R 800 (p = 0.162), respectively. Monocular LCVA was 0.59 ± 0.22 LogMAR (range: 0.18 to 0.96) and 0.53 ± 0.20 LogMAR (range: 0.10 to 0.92) for Conventional Refraction and V-R 800, respectively (p = 0.060). With SLs, HCVA was 0.12 ± 0.16 LogMAR (range: -0.12 to 0.50) and 0.09 ± 0.11 LogMAR (range: -0.08 to 0.26) for Conventional Refraction and V-R 800 (p = 0.272), respectively. LCVA was 0.43 ± 0.20 LogMAR (range: 0.06 to 0.90) and 0.47 ± 0.15 LogMAR (range: 0.18 to 0.88), respectively (p = 0.287).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Algorithm-based refraction method provided a more positive spherical equivalent than conventional methods, and both techniques resulted in comparable HCVA and LCVA. Algorithm-based refraction may offer an alternative for over-refraction in patients with irregular corneas during SLs.</p>","PeriodicalId":49087,"journal":{"name":"Contact Lens & Anterior Eye","volume":" ","pages":"102485"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Optimizing scleral lens prescriptions: a comparison of algorithmic and conventional refraction and over-refraction in irregular corneas.\",\"authors\":\"Rafaela S Alves-de-Carvalho, Rute J Macedo-de-Araújo, José M González-Méijome\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clae.2025.102485\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the accuracy and consistency of subjective refraction using conventional methods versus an algorithm-based approach in patients with primary or secondary corneal irregularities, both with and without scleral lenses (SL).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Nineteen eyes of ten subjects with irregular corneas underwent non-cycloplegic refraction using (I) retinoscopy followed by conventional subjective refraction (Conventional Refraction) to achieve maximum visual acuity with the maximum positive prescription, and (II) a Hartmann-Shack wavefront aberrometer (WAM 800) followed by an algorithm-based semi-automatic phoropter (Vision-R 800). Refraction measurements were conducted with both techniques, without and with SLs. Outcomes included spherical equivalent (M) and astigmatic components (J0 and J45), and monocular high and low-contrast visual acuity (HCVA and LCVA).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Without SLs, the mean difference in the spherical equivalent between methods was -0.80 ± 1.20 D (p = 0.001). With SLs, the mean difference was -1.04 ± 0.93 D (p = 0.001). Without SLs, monocular HCVA was 0.21 ± 0.20 LogMAR (range: -0.10 to 0.76) and 0.17 ± 0.14 LogMAR (range: -0.02 to 0.60) for Conventional Refraction and V-R 800 (p = 0.162), respectively. Monocular LCVA was 0.59 ± 0.22 LogMAR (range: 0.18 to 0.96) and 0.53 ± 0.20 LogMAR (range: 0.10 to 0.92) for Conventional Refraction and V-R 800, respectively (p = 0.060). With SLs, HCVA was 0.12 ± 0.16 LogMAR (range: -0.12 to 0.50) and 0.09 ± 0.11 LogMAR (range: -0.08 to 0.26) for Conventional Refraction and V-R 800 (p = 0.272), respectively. LCVA was 0.43 ± 0.20 LogMAR (range: 0.06 to 0.90) and 0.47 ± 0.15 LogMAR (range: 0.18 to 0.88), respectively (p = 0.287).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Algorithm-based refraction method provided a more positive spherical equivalent than conventional methods, and both techniques resulted in comparable HCVA and LCVA. Algorithm-based refraction may offer an alternative for over-refraction in patients with irregular corneas during SLs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49087,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contact Lens & Anterior Eye\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"102485\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contact Lens & Anterior Eye\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2025.102485\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contact Lens & Anterior Eye","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2025.102485","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较使用常规方法和基于算法的方法对有或无巩膜晶状体(SL)的原发性或继发性角膜不规则患者主观屈光的准确性和一致性。方法:对10例角膜不规则患者19只眼进行非睫状体麻痹性屈光检查,采用(I)视网膜镜检查+常规主观屈光检查(conventional refraction),以最大正处方获得最大视力;(II)哈特曼-沙克波前像差仪(WAM 800) +基于算法的半自动屈光仪(Vision-R 800)。使用两种技术进行了折射测量,包括不使用SLs和使用SLs。结果包括球面等效(M)和散光分量(J0和J45),以及单眼高对比度和低对比度视力(HCVA和LCVA)。结果:在无SLs的情况下,两种方法的球等效平均差值为-0.80±1.20 D (p = 0.001)。SLs组的平均差异为-1.04±0.93 D (p = 0.001)。无SLs时,单眼HCVA常规折射和V-R 800分别为0.21±0.20 LogMAR(范围:-0.10至0.76)和0.17±0.14 LogMAR(范围:-0.02至0.60)(p = 0.162)。常规屈光和V-R 800的单眼LCVA分别为0.59±0.22 LogMAR(范围:0.18至0.96)和0.53±0.20 LogMAR(范围:0.10至0.92)(p = 0.060)。对于SLs,常规折射和V-R 800的HCVA分别为0.12±0.16 LogMAR(范围:-0.12至0.50)和0.09±0.11 LogMAR(范围:-0.08至0.26)(p = 0.272)。LCVA分别为0.43±0.20 LogMAR(范围:0.06 ~ 0.90)和0.47±0.15 LogMAR(范围:0.18 ~ 0.88)(p = 0.287)。结论:基于算法的折射法比传统方法提供了更正的球面等效,两种技术的HCVA和LCVA相当。基于算法的屈光可能为SLs期间角膜不规则患者的过度屈光提供另一种选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Optimizing scleral lens prescriptions: a comparison of algorithmic and conventional refraction and over-refraction in irregular corneas.

Purpose: To compare the accuracy and consistency of subjective refraction using conventional methods versus an algorithm-based approach in patients with primary or secondary corneal irregularities, both with and without scleral lenses (SL).

Methods: Nineteen eyes of ten subjects with irregular corneas underwent non-cycloplegic refraction using (I) retinoscopy followed by conventional subjective refraction (Conventional Refraction) to achieve maximum visual acuity with the maximum positive prescription, and (II) a Hartmann-Shack wavefront aberrometer (WAM 800) followed by an algorithm-based semi-automatic phoropter (Vision-R 800). Refraction measurements were conducted with both techniques, without and with SLs. Outcomes included spherical equivalent (M) and astigmatic components (J0 and J45), and monocular high and low-contrast visual acuity (HCVA and LCVA).

Results: Without SLs, the mean difference in the spherical equivalent between methods was -0.80 ± 1.20 D (p = 0.001). With SLs, the mean difference was -1.04 ± 0.93 D (p = 0.001). Without SLs, monocular HCVA was 0.21 ± 0.20 LogMAR (range: -0.10 to 0.76) and 0.17 ± 0.14 LogMAR (range: -0.02 to 0.60) for Conventional Refraction and V-R 800 (p = 0.162), respectively. Monocular LCVA was 0.59 ± 0.22 LogMAR (range: 0.18 to 0.96) and 0.53 ± 0.20 LogMAR (range: 0.10 to 0.92) for Conventional Refraction and V-R 800, respectively (p = 0.060). With SLs, HCVA was 0.12 ± 0.16 LogMAR (range: -0.12 to 0.50) and 0.09 ± 0.11 LogMAR (range: -0.08 to 0.26) for Conventional Refraction and V-R 800 (p = 0.272), respectively. LCVA was 0.43 ± 0.20 LogMAR (range: 0.06 to 0.90) and 0.47 ± 0.15 LogMAR (range: 0.18 to 0.88), respectively (p = 0.287).

Conclusions: Algorithm-based refraction method provided a more positive spherical equivalent than conventional methods, and both techniques resulted in comparable HCVA and LCVA. Algorithm-based refraction may offer an alternative for over-refraction in patients with irregular corneas during SLs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
18.80%
发文量
198
审稿时长
55 days
期刊介绍: Contact Lens & Anterior Eye is a research-based journal covering all aspects of contact lens theory and practice, including original articles on invention and innovations, as well as the regular features of: Case Reports; Literary Reviews; Editorials; Instrumentation and Techniques and Dates of Professional Meetings.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信