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}
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.
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.