ABSTRACT
Purpose@#To compare refractive error measured by hand-held wavefront aberrometers with postcycloplegic autorefraction (AR) and cycloplegic refraction (CR). @*Methods@#The medical records of patients who received refractive measurements using the wavefront aberrometer, postcycloplegic AR, and CR between January 2014 and January 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. The mean differences, 95% confidence intervals, and limits of agreement (LOA) were calculated for the refractive vector components (M, J0, and J45). @*Results@#Fifty-one patients (9.0 ± 5.5 years, male 41.2%) were enrolled in this study, and only the right eye of each was included. Refractive errors ranged from -9.25 to +7.25 diopters (D) for spherical equivalent (median, 0.75 D). The M component was not significantly different among the three methods (p = 0.080). However, the J0 vector component was significantly different (p < 0.001). After post hoc analysis, the wavefront aberrometer obtained more positive values for J0 compared to the other methods. The J45 component was not significantly different among the three methods (p = 0.143). The mean difference between the wavefront aberrometer and postcycloplegic AR was -0.115 D (LOA, -1.578 to 1.348 D) for M, 0.239 D (LOA, -0.371 to 0.850 D) for J0, and -0.015 D (LOA, -0.768 to 0.738 D) for J45. The mean difference between the wavefront aberrometer and CR was -0.220 D (LOA, -1.790 to 1.350 D) for M, 0.300 D (LOA, -0.526 to 1.127 D) for J0, and -0.079 D (-0.662 to 0.504 D) for J45. @*Conclusions@#The wavefront aberrometer showed good agreement with postcycloplegic AR and CR in spherical equivalents, but tended to produce slightly myopic results. The wavefront aberrometer also overestimated with-the-rule astigmatism. Therefore, we recommend that the device be used for estimations of refractive error, which may be useful for patients who have postural difficulties, live in undeveloped countries, or are bedridden.
ABSTRACT
To investigate conditions that cause temporal lens opacity, we tested chemical and physical factors, such as anaesthesia dose, ocular surface dryness, and infrared (IR) light exposure in anaesthetised C57BL/6 N mice. Mice were anaesthetised with a low (80%; tiletamine/zolazepam 32 mg/kg and xylazine 8 mg/kg, intraperitoneal injection) or high (120%; 48 mg/kg and 12 mg/kg) dose of anaesthetic and examined every 5 min from 10 to 30 min after anaesthesia was induced. Lens opacity levels were assessed and graded (1–6) using the standard classification system. Regardless of the anaesthetic dose, lens opacity grade was 1–2 in moisturised eyes with application of 0.5% carboxymethylcellulose, and 5–6 in dry ocular surface conditions. Lens opacity in mice with high-dose anaesthetic in the dry ocular surface condition was not different from that of mice with low-dose anaesthetic. Lens opacity grade 1–2 was noted in eyes in the wet ocular surface condition, regardless of IR light exposure. During IR light exposure in eyes in the dry ocular surface condition, lens opacity (grade 6) in mice with high-dose anaesthetic was not different from that (grade 6) in mice with low-dose anaesthetic. We demonstrated that ocular surface dryness might be a relevant factor for the formation and progression of lens opacity in anesthetized C57BL/6 N mice. Anaesthesia dose and IR light exposure did not strongly influence lens opacity formation. Furthermore, eyes with corneal dryness-induced lens opacity recovered to normal status without additional intervention.
ABSTRACT
To investigate conditions that cause temporal lens opacity, we tested chemical and physical factors, such as anaesthesia dose, ocular surface dryness, and infrared (IR) light exposure in anaesthetised C57BL/6 N mice. Mice were anaesthetised with a low (80%; tiletamine/zolazepam 32 mg/kg and xylazine 8 mg/kg, intraperitoneal injection) or high (120%; 48 mg/kg and 12 mg/kg) dose of anaesthetic and examined every 5 min from 10 to 30 min after anaesthesia was induced. Lens opacity levels were assessed and graded (1–6) using the standard classification system. Regardless of the anaesthetic dose, lens opacity grade was 1–2 in moisturised eyes with application of 0.5% carboxymethylcellulose, and 5–6 in dry ocular surface conditions. Lens opacity in mice with high-dose anaesthetic in the dry ocular surface condition was not different from that of mice with low-dose anaesthetic. Lens opacity grade 1–2 was noted in eyes in the wet ocular surface condition, regardless of IR light exposure. During IR light exposure in eyes in the dry ocular surface condition, lens opacity (grade 6) in mice with high-dose anaesthetic was not different from that (grade 6) in mice with low-dose anaesthetic. We demonstrated that ocular surface dryness might be a relevant factor for the formation and progression of lens opacity in anesthetized C57BL/6 N mice. Anaesthesia dose and IR light exposure did not strongly influence lens opacity formation. Furthermore, eyes with corneal dryness-induced lens opacity recovered to normal status without additional intervention.