Evaluation of refractive error measurements of the WaveScan WaveFront system and the Tracey Wavefront aberrometer

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of the WaveScan WavePrint system and the Tracey wavefront aberrometer in measuring refractive errors in phakic eyes. Setting: Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA. Methods: Using subjective manifest refraction (MR) as the standard, the spherical equivalent (SE), sphere, and cylinder were compared to values measured by WaveScan and Tracey devices in virgin eyes and eyes that had had corneal refractive surgery. Astigmatism was evaluated using vector analysis. The accuracy of the WaveScan and Tracey devices was assessed by 95% limits of agreement (95% LA), and repeatability was analyzed by 2 standard deviations (SDs) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Results: The mean differences in SE, sphere, and cylinder between MR and WaveScan were −0.26 diopter (D), −0.12 D, and −0.28 D, respectively, and between MR and Tracey, −0.21 D, −0.01 D, and −0.40 D, respectively. The 95% LA for SE, sphere, and cylinder were −1.09 to 0.57 D, −1.14 to 0.89 D, and −0.95 to 0.40 D, respectively, for WaveScan and −1.37 to 0.95 D, −1.27 to 1.26 D, and −1.16 to 0.35 D, respectively, for Tracey. Vector analysis revealed mean differences of −0.47 +0.07 × 9° between MR and WaveScan and of −0.53 +0.27 × 12 between MR and Tracey. The 2 SDs for SE, sphere, and cylinder were 0.26 D, 0.29 D, and 0.16 D, respectively, for WaveScan and 0.31 D, 0.36 D, and 0.33 D, respectively, for Tracey. The ICCs for SE, sphere, and cylinder were 0.993, 0.992, and 0.902, respectively, for WaveScan and 0.994, 0.992, and 0.764, respectively, for Tracey. The Tracey device measured all eyes evaluated; the WaveScan could not measure 14% of normal eyes and 50% of post laser in situ keratomileusis eyes. Conclusions: Using MR as the standard, refractive errors measured by the WaveScan and Tracey devices were reliable and reproducible. However, the Tracey device was more robust in its ability to obtain measurements in normal and postoperative eyes.

[1]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[2]  A. Beckett,et al.  AKUFO AND IBARAPA. , 1965, Lancet.

[3]  G. Jacobsen,et al.  Clinical evaluation of the Allergan Humphrey 500 autorefractor and the Nidek AR-1000 autorefractor. , 1996, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[4]  I G Pallikaris,et al.  Clinical experience with the Tracey technology wavefront device. , 2000, Journal of refractive surgery.

[5]  M Kaemmerer,et al.  Wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis: early results in three eyes. , 2000, Journal of refractive surgery.

[6]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[7]  D. Koch,et al.  Comparison of a ray‐tracing refractometer, autorefractor, and computerized videokeratography in measuring pseudophakic eyes , 2002, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[8]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  The Equivalence of Weighted Kappa and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient as Measures of Reliability , 1973 .

[9]  K P Thompson,et al.  Measurement of ocular local wavefront distortion with a spatially resolved refractometer. , 1992, Applied optics.

[10]  U. Businger,et al.  Autorefraction/autokeratometry and subjective refraction in untreated and photorefractive keratectomy-treated eyes. , 1997, Archives of ophthalmology.

[11]  David R Williams,et al.  Calculated impact of higher-order monochromatic aberrations on retinal image quality in a population of human eyes. , 2002, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[12]  M. Merchea Customized Corneal Ablation: the Quest for Supervision , 2001 .

[13]  R. Navarro,et al.  Laser Ray Tracing versus Hartmann-Shack sensor for measuring optical aberrations in the human eye. , 2000, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[14]  I G Pallikaris,et al.  Principles of ray tracing aberrometry. , 2000, Journal of refractive surgery.

[15]  J. Villada,et al.  Comparative evaluation of the Allergan Humphrey 570 and Canon RK-l autorefractors: I. Objective autorefraction in normal subjects , 1992, Eye.

[16]  B Kirshner,et al.  A methodological framework for assessing health indices. , 1985, Journal of chronic diseases.

[17]  P Mierdel,et al.  Principles of Tscherning aberrometry. , 2000, Journal of refractive surgery.

[18]  A Bradley,et al.  Comparison of the eye's wave-front aberration measured psychophysically and with the Shack-Hartmann wave-front sensor. , 1998, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[19]  J S Wolffsohn,et al.  Clinical evaluation of the Shin-Nippon SRW-5000 autorefractor in adults. , 2001, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[20]  M. Rosenfield,et al.  Repeatability of Subjective and Objective Refraction , 1995, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[21]  S. Macrae,et al.  Slit skiascopic-guided ablation using the Nidek laser. , 2000, Journal of refractive surgery.

[22]  Junzhong Liang,et al.  Objective measurement of wave aberrations of the human eye with the use of a Hartmann-Shack wave-front sensor. , 1994, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[23]  J. Holladay,et al.  Analysis of aggregate surgically induced refractive change, prediction error, and intraocular astigmatism , 2001, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.