ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To evaluate the agreement and repeatability between a new commercially available binocular open-field wavefront autorefractor, as part of the Eye Refract system, and a monocular closed-field wavefront autorefractor (VX110). METHODS: A cross-sectional, randomized, and single-masked study was performed. Ninety-nine eyes of 99 healthy participants (37.22 ± 18.04 years, range 8 to 69 years) were randomly analyzed. Three measurements with the Eye Refract and the VX110 were taken on three different days, under noncycloplegic conditions. Mean spherical equivalent (MSE), cylindrical vectors (J0 and J45), and binocular corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA) were compared between both autorefractors. An intersession repeatability analysis was done considering the values of repeatability (S r ) and its 95% limit (r). RESULTS: The VX110 showed more negative values (P < 0.001) in terms of MSE in comparison with the Eye Refract (0.20 D). Regarding cylindrical vectors, J45 showed statistically significant differences (P=0.001) between both wavefront autorefractors, but they were not clinically relevant (<0.05 D). In BCDVA, there were no statistically significant differences (P=0.667) between both wavefront autorefractors. Additionally, the Eye Refract was more repeatable than the VX110 in terms of both MSE (S r EYE REFRACT = 0.21 D, S r VX110 = 0.53 D) and J0 (S r EYE REFRACT = 0.12 D, S r VX110 = 0.35 D). CONCLUSIONS: The Eye Refract provided enough accuracy and reliability to estimate refractive errors in different age groups, achieving better results than the VX110. Therefore, the Eye Refract proved to be a useful autorefractor to be incorporated into clinical practice.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: We evaluate the efficacy of a new system of binocular refraction, mainly based on ocular aberrometry (EYER) and compare it with the traditional subjective refraction as gold standard. METHODS: A prospective, double blind, and transversal study was performed on 99 subjects (35 men, 64 women; mean age 37.22 ± 18.04 years; range, 7-70 years). Refractive surgery or irregular cornea were considered exclusion criteria. Subjective refraction was performed by three different optometrists and EYER by other optometrists on three different days randomly. The binocular best corrected visual acuity (BBCVA), subjective vision evaluated with visual analogue scale (VAS), refraction spent time, and mean spherical equivalent (MSE), and vertical and oblique cylindrical components (J0 and J45) were analyzed. RESULTS: A positive strong correlation between EYER and subjective refraction was found for MSE (Pearson, 0.984; P < 0.001) and J0 and J45 (Pearson, 0.837; P < 0.001 and Pearson, 0.852; P < 0.001, respectively) in the total group. There were no statistically significant differences for BBCVA (P < 0.05). The VAS scores were 84.29 ± 12.29 with the EYER and 86.89 ± 12.38 with subjective refraction (P = 0.031). The spent time to perform the refraction was statistically lower (P < 0.05) with the EYER compared to conventional subjective refraction for all groups. CONCLUSIONS: The EYER system showed similar results in terms of spherical and cylindrical components, visual acuity being the spent time in the refraction lower than conventional subjective refraction. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: This new objective refraction system provides less chair spent time with similar results than subjective refraction.
