{"title":"两种计算机化地形软件系统安装刚性透气性隐形眼镜的效率和精度。","authors":"B R Jani, L B Szczotka","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The world of computerized videokeratoscopy is continually evolving. Computerized videokeratoscope contact lens programs boast the capability to accurately design final rigid gas permeable (RGP) lens parameters and simulate contact lens fluorescein patterns. We evaluated the EyeSys System 2000 Pro-Fit software (v. 4.0) and Humphrey Atlas MasterVue Contact Lens Module (v. A6) for efficiency and accuracy in fitting RGP contact lenses on normal subjects.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Balanced manifest refractions, slit lamp examinations, and computerized topographical analysis with RGP module lens fitting were performed and compared for all eyes. Lens parameters were chosen after an optimal simulated fluorescein pattern was achieved by either accepting the initially recommended default lens or a modification. Final lens parameters were based on clinical performance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>With the Humphrey Atlas software, which uses a default topographic tear clearance fitting protocol set by the manufacturer, 24/50 (48%) eyes required modifications to the default fitting parameters based on the simulated fluorescein patterns. Nine of 50 eyes (18%) required further modifications once the RGP lens was dispensed. The EyeSys Pro-Fit software, which allows a custom tear clearance fitting protocol set by the user as default, required modifications to 20/35 eyes (57.1%) from default fittings provided by the system. Six of 35 eyes (17.1%) required subsequent modifications once the RGP lens was dispensed. Comparison of the EyeSys to Humphrey modules revealed no significant difference in efficiency (P=0.51), defined as any changes required to the default parameters; however, the user made more modifications to the EyeSys module from the default setting. There was no significant difference in final success rates between EyeSys (82.9%) and Humphrey (82%) systems (P=1.00).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although both topography guided contact lens modules offered accuracy in RGP fitting, a user programmed default (EyeSys) protocol did not improve efficiency in RGP lens parameter selection compared to a manufacturer programmed default module (Humphrey). The need for a knowledgeable contact lens fitter remains to guide the systems in achieving the optimal fit.</p>","PeriodicalId":22367,"journal":{"name":"The CLAO journal : official publication of the Contact Lens Association of Ophthalmologists, Inc","volume":"26 2","pages":"91-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficiency and accuracy of two computerized topography software systems for fitting rigid gas permeable contact lenses.\",\"authors\":\"B R Jani, L B Szczotka\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The world of computerized videokeratoscopy is continually evolving. Computerized videokeratoscope contact lens programs boast the capability to accurately design final rigid gas permeable (RGP) lens parameters and simulate contact lens fluorescein patterns. We evaluated the EyeSys System 2000 Pro-Fit software (v. 4.0) and Humphrey Atlas MasterVue Contact Lens Module (v. A6) for efficiency and accuracy in fitting RGP contact lenses on normal subjects.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Balanced manifest refractions, slit lamp examinations, and computerized topographical analysis with RGP module lens fitting were performed and compared for all eyes. Lens parameters were chosen after an optimal simulated fluorescein pattern was achieved by either accepting the initially recommended default lens or a modification. Final lens parameters were based on clinical performance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>With the Humphrey Atlas software, which uses a default topographic tear clearance fitting protocol set by the manufacturer, 24/50 (48%) eyes required modifications to the default fitting parameters based on the simulated fluorescein patterns. Nine of 50 eyes (18%) required further modifications once the RGP lens was dispensed. The EyeSys Pro-Fit software, which allows a custom tear clearance fitting protocol set by the user as default, required modifications to 20/35 eyes (57.1%) from default fittings provided by the system. Six of 35 eyes (17.1%) required subsequent modifications once the RGP lens was dispensed. Comparison of the EyeSys to Humphrey modules revealed no significant difference in efficiency (P=0.51), defined as any changes required to the default parameters; however, the user made more modifications to the EyeSys module from the default setting. There was no significant difference in final success rates between EyeSys (82.9%) and Humphrey (82%) systems (P=1.00).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although both topography guided contact lens modules offered accuracy in RGP fitting, a user programmed default (EyeSys) protocol did not improve efficiency in RGP lens parameter selection compared to a manufacturer programmed default module (Humphrey). The need for a knowledgeable contact lens fitter remains to guide the systems in achieving the optimal fit.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22367,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The CLAO journal : official publication of the Contact Lens Association of Ophthalmologists, Inc\",\"volume\":\"26 2\",\"pages\":\"91-6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2000-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The CLAO journal : official publication of the Contact Lens Association of Ophthalmologists, Inc\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The CLAO journal : official publication of the Contact Lens Association of Ophthalmologists, Inc","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:计算机视频角膜镜的世界在不断发展。计算机化的视频角化镜隐形眼镜程序具有精确设计最终刚性透气性(RGP)镜片参数和模拟隐形眼镜荧光素模式的能力。我们评估了eyeesys System 2000 Pro-Fit软件(v. 4.0)和Humphrey Atlas MasterVue隐形眼镜模块(v. A6)在正常受试者上安装RGP隐形眼镜的效率和准确性。方法:对所有眼睛进行平衡明显折射、裂隙灯检查和计算机地形分析,并与RGP模组晶状体拟合进行比较。通过接受最初推荐的默认透镜或修改,在获得最佳模拟荧光素模式后选择透镜参数。最终晶状体参数以临床表现为依据。结果:使用Humphrey Atlas软件,该软件使用制造商设置的默认地形撕裂清除拟合方案,24/50(48%)的眼睛需要根据模拟荧光素模式修改默认拟合参数。50只眼睛中有9只(18%)在配上RGP晶状体后需要进一步修改。eyeesys Pro-Fit软件允许用户默认设置自定义泪液清除配套件协议,需要将系统提供的默认配套件修改为20/35只眼睛(57.1%)。35只眼睛中有6只(17.1%)需要在RGP晶状体配发后进行后续修改。EyeSys与Humphrey模块的比较显示效率无显著差异(P=0.51),定义为需要更改默认参数;然而,用户在默认设置的基础上对EyeSys模块进行了更多修改。EyeSys系统(82.9%)和Humphrey系统(82%)的最终成功率无显著差异(P=1.00)。结论:尽管两种地形引导的隐形眼镜模块都提供了RGP拟合的准确性,但与制造商编程的默认模块(Humphrey)相比,用户编程的默认(EyeSys)协议并没有提高RGP镜片参数选择的效率。需要一个知识渊博的隐形眼镜过滤器仍然指导系统实现最佳配合。
Efficiency and accuracy of two computerized topography software systems for fitting rigid gas permeable contact lenses.
Purpose: The world of computerized videokeratoscopy is continually evolving. Computerized videokeratoscope contact lens programs boast the capability to accurately design final rigid gas permeable (RGP) lens parameters and simulate contact lens fluorescein patterns. We evaluated the EyeSys System 2000 Pro-Fit software (v. 4.0) and Humphrey Atlas MasterVue Contact Lens Module (v. A6) for efficiency and accuracy in fitting RGP contact lenses on normal subjects.
Methods: Balanced manifest refractions, slit lamp examinations, and computerized topographical analysis with RGP module lens fitting were performed and compared for all eyes. Lens parameters were chosen after an optimal simulated fluorescein pattern was achieved by either accepting the initially recommended default lens or a modification. Final lens parameters were based on clinical performance.
Results: With the Humphrey Atlas software, which uses a default topographic tear clearance fitting protocol set by the manufacturer, 24/50 (48%) eyes required modifications to the default fitting parameters based on the simulated fluorescein patterns. Nine of 50 eyes (18%) required further modifications once the RGP lens was dispensed. The EyeSys Pro-Fit software, which allows a custom tear clearance fitting protocol set by the user as default, required modifications to 20/35 eyes (57.1%) from default fittings provided by the system. Six of 35 eyes (17.1%) required subsequent modifications once the RGP lens was dispensed. Comparison of the EyeSys to Humphrey modules revealed no significant difference in efficiency (P=0.51), defined as any changes required to the default parameters; however, the user made more modifications to the EyeSys module from the default setting. There was no significant difference in final success rates between EyeSys (82.9%) and Humphrey (82%) systems (P=1.00).
Conclusion: Although both topography guided contact lens modules offered accuracy in RGP fitting, a user programmed default (EyeSys) protocol did not improve efficiency in RGP lens parameter selection compared to a manufacturer programmed default module (Humphrey). The need for a knowledgeable contact lens fitter remains to guide the systems in achieving the optimal fit.