Visual Acuity Prediction Based on Different Refraction Types For Patients With Down Syndrome.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if control observers can be used as surrogates to predict visual acuity (VA) of patients with Down syndrome (DS). Methods: Thirty adults with DS were enrolled in a clinical trial testing three refraction types: clinical refraction and two using wavefront aberration measures to optimize the metrics pupil fraction tessellated (PFSt) and visual Strehl ratio (VSX). Monocular VA was obtained through habitual refractions and each experimental refraction type. Five controls without DS viewed acuity charts simulating the retinal image produced when the corrections for each DS eye are worn, performing VA and scoring image quality of each chart. Group median VA (DS versus controls) were compared for each refraction type, and control image quality scores were compared to corresponding VA across refraction types. Results: Median VA for participants with DS ranged from 0.46 logMAR (interquartile range [IQR] = 0.32 to 0.54) with habitual correction to 0.36 logMAR (IQR = 0.28 to 0.54) with VSX, whereas controls ranged from 0.37 logMAR (IQR = 0.29 to 0.42) with habitual correction to 0.01 logMAR (IQR = -0.02 to 0.05) with VSX. Overall image quality scores were best for PFSt and VSX and showed a strong linear relationship with control VA (r = -0.91, P < 0.001), and a lesser correlation with DS VA (r = -0.33, P < 0.001). Conclusions: Using surrogate observers to judge image quality simulations of eyes with DS did not predict actual VA, suggesting additional, non-optical factors may be limiting VA in individuals with DS. Translational Relevance: Findings may guide clinical refraction practices for patients with DS.

Utilising a visual image quality metric to optimise spectacle prescriptions for eyes with keratoconus.

PURPOSE: To compare optical performance, visual performance, and patient-perceived quality of vision with: (1) spectacles determined using subjective refraction and (2) spectacles determined using an objective optimisation method based on wavefront aberration data for eyes with keratoconus. METHODS: Thirty-seven eyes (20 subjects) with keratoconus underwent both subjective refraction and uncorrected wavefront aberration measurement. Wavefront aberration data were used to objectively identify a sphero-cylindrical refraction that optimised the visual image quality metric visual Strehl ratio (VSX). The two refractions were assembled in trial frames and worn by the subject in a random order. High-contrast visual acuity (VA), letter contrast sensitivity (CS), and the patient's short-term subjective preference were recorded for each prescription. RESULTS: Median magnitude of the dioptric difference (a measure of similarity between the subjective and objective refractions) was 2.77 D (range = 0.21-20.44 D, first quartile = 1.02 D, third quartile = 4.36 D). Sixty-eight per cent of eyes had better VA with the objective refraction and 32% of eyes gained more than one line of VA. Monocularly, objective refraction was preferred 68% of the time when looking at a distant acuity chart and 76% of the time when viewing a real-world dynamic scene. CONCLUSIONS: Objective refraction based on visual image quality derived from wavefront aberration data can be valuable in the determination of monocular spectacle refractions for individuals with keratoconus.

Dioptric differences between clinically determined and metric-optimised refractions for adults with Down syndrome.

PURPOSE: Refractions based on the optimisation of single-value wavefront-derived metrics may help determine appropriate corrections for individuals with Down syndrome where clinical techniques fall short. This study compared dioptric differences between refractions obtained using standard clinical techniques and two metric-optimised methods: visual Strehl ratio (VSX) and pupil fraction tessellated (PFSt), and investigated characteristics that may contribute to the differences between refraction types. METHODS: Thirty adults with Down syndrome (age = 29 ± 10 years) participated. Three refractive corrections (VSX, PFSt and clinical) were determined and converted to vector notation (M, J0 , J45 ) to calculate the dioptric difference between pairings of each type using a mixed model repeated measures approach. Linear correlations and multivariable regression were performed to examine the relationship between dioptric differences and the following participant characteristics: higher order root mean square (RMS) for a 4 mm pupil diameter, spherical equivalent refractive error and Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (a measure of developmental ability). RESULTS: The least squares mean estimates (standard error) of the dioptric differences for each pairing were as follows: VSX versus PFSt = 0.51 D (0.11); VSX versus clinical = 1.19 D (0.11) and PFSt versus clinical = 1.04 D (0.11). There was a statistically significant difference in the dioptric differences between the clinical refraction and each of the metric-optimised refractions (p < 0.001). Increased dioptric differences in refraction were correlated with increased higher order RMS (R = 0.64, p < 0.001 [VSX vs. clinical] and R = 0.47, p < 0.001 [PFSt vs. clinical]) as well as increased myopic spherical equivalent refractive error (R = 0.37, p = 0.004 [VSX vs. clinical] and R = 0.51, p < 0.001 [PFSt vs. clinical]). CONCLUSIONS: The observed differences in refraction demonstrate that a significant portion of the refractive uncertainty is related to increased higher order aberrations and myopic refractive error. Methodology surrounding clinical techniques and metric-optimisation based on wavefront aberrometry may explain the difference in refractive endpoints.

Case Report: When Two Is Worse Than One-Stereo Imbalance in a Case of Wavefront-guided Scleral Lenses.

SIGNIFICANCE: Wavefront-guided scleral lenses (WGSLs) reduce visually debilitating residual higher-order aberrations. Although reduced higher-order aberrations lead to improvement in monocular high-contrast visual acuity (VA), the success of the lenses in everyday life depends on additional factors such as retinal contrast, binocular balance, and stereoacuity. PURPOSE: This report describes a case where WGSLs provided improved monocular vision compared with scleral lenses (SLs) but reduced binocularity and stereoacuity. CASE REPORT: A 48-year-old woman with moderate keratoconus right eye (OD) and severe left eye (OS) was fitted with SLs and WGSLs. Visual acuity with best SLs was 20/20 -2 OD and 20/25 -2 OS. Residual higher-order root-mean-square (HORMS) wavefront error (6 mm pupil) was 0.56 µm OD and 1.38 µm OS. Visual acuity with WGSLs was 20/16 -2 OD and 20/25 +2 OS, and residual HORMS was 0.41 µm OD and 0.98 µm OS. Monocularly, WGSLs were reported to provide better VA. However, binocularly, the patient reported an "imbalanced feeling" and preferred the SLs over WGSLs. Binocular VA at distance was 20/25 with SLs and 20/25 -2 with WGSL. To investigate, the Worth Four-Dot test was performed, and the outcomes reported fusion with SLs but suppression OS at distance with WGSLs. Stereoacuity was 160 arc seconds at near and 120 arc seconds at distance with SLs and 400 arc seconds at near and >1200 arc seconds at distance with WGSLs. Dichoptic contrast balancing showed a balance point of 0.48 with SLs and 0.17 with WGSLs, indicating a strong preference toward OD. Simulation of the patient's retinal image revealed a greater difference in image contrast between the two eyes with WGSLs. CONCLUSIONS: Wavefront-guided scleral lenses reduced HORMS and improved VA compared with SLs. However, in this case, it inadvertently caused binocular imbalance. As WGSLs become more widely available, future work should include methods to optimize binocular balance to maximize overall patient satisfaction.

Clinical applications of personalising the neural components of visual image quality metrics for individual eyes.

PURPOSE: Eyecare is evolving increasingly personalised corrections and increasingly personalised evaluations of corrections on-eye. This report describes individualising optical and neural components of the VSX (visual Strehl) metric and evaluates personalisation using two clinical applications. (1) Better understanding visual experience: While VSX tracks visual performance in typical eyes, non-individualised metrics underestimated visual performance in highly aberrated eyes - could this be understood by personalising metrics? (2) Metric-optimised objective spherocylindrical refractions in typical and atypical eyes have used neural weighting functions of typical eyes - will personalisation affect the outcome in clinical 0.25D steps? METHODS: Orientation-specific neural contrast sensitivity was measured in four typical myopic and astigmatic eyes and six eyes with keratoconus. Wavefront error was measured in all eyes while uncorrected and when the keratoconic eyes wore wavefront-guided scleral lenses. Total experiment duration was 24-28 h per subject. Two versions of VSX were calculated for each application: one weighted ocular optics with measured neural contrast sensitivity data from that eye, another weighted optics with a representative neural function of typical eyes. Wavefront-guided corrections were evaluated using the two metric values. Spherocylindrical corrections that optimised each metric were identified. RESULTS: Metric values for keratoconic eyes improved by a mean factor of 1.99 (~0.3 log units) when personalised. Applying this factor to a larger sample of eyes from a previous keratoconus study reconciled dissonances between the percentage of eyes reaching normative best-corrected metric levels and the percentages of eyes reaching normative levels of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. Spherocylindrical corrections that optimised both versions of VSX were clinically equivalent (mean ± SD Euclidean dioptric difference 0.13 ± 0.18 D). CONCLUSIONS: Personalising visual image quality metrics is beneficial when actual metric values are used (evaluating ophthalmic corrections on-eye against norms) and when fine increments in visual quality are imparted (wavefront-guided corrections). However, partially individualised metrics appear adequate when metrics relatively rank spherocylindrical corrections in 0.25 D steps.

Visual Acuity Outcomes in a Randomized Trial of Wavefront Metric-optimized Refractions in Adults with Down Syndrome.

SIGNIFICANCE: This study reports visual acuity outcomes from a clinical trial investigating an objective refraction strategy that may provide a useful tool for practitioners needing additional strategies to identify refractive corrections for adults with intellectual disability. PURPOSE: Determining refractions for individuals with Down syndrome is challenging because of the presence of elevated refractive error, optical aberrations, and cognitive impairment. This randomized clinical trial evaluated the performance of spectacle corrections determined using clinical techniques and objective refractions derived from wavefront aberration measures. METHODS: Thirty adults with Down syndrome had a clinical refraction determined by a single expert examiner using pre-dilation and post-dilation techniques appropriate for this population. Objective refractions were determined from dilated wavefront aberration measures that were processed post-visit to identify refractions that optimized each of two image quality metrics: pupil fraction tessellated and visual Strehl ratio in the spatial domain. The three refractions were dispensed in random order and worn for 2 months each. The primary outcome measure, binocular visual acuity, was obtained by a masked examiner administering a distance logMAR acuity test. To compare treatment types, mean acuity was compared using a two-sided type 3 F test of the treatment effect in a linear mixed-effects regression model, where the final model included fixed effects for treatment, period (1, 2, or 3), and first-order carryover effects. RESULTS: The 2-month estimated least square means in binocular visual acuity (logMAR) were 0.34 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25 to 0.39) for clinical refractions, 0.31 (95% CI, 0.25 to 0.36) for pupil fraction tesselated refractions, and 0.33 (95% CI, 0.27 to 0.38) for visual Strehl ratio refractions. No statistically significant treatment effect was observed (F = 1.10, P = .34). CONCLUSIONS: Objective refractions derived from dilated wavefront aberration measures resulted in acuity similar to expert clinician-derived refractions, suggesting that the objective method may be a suitable alternative for patients with Down syndrome.

Comparing the CamBlobs2 contrast sensitivity test to the near Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity test in normally-sighted young adults.

PURPOSE: Contrast sensitivity (CS) has been proposed as a potential method for patients to assess their vision at home. The CamBlobs2 contrast sensitivity test is meant to be performed easily in the clinic or at home. The purpose of this study was to determine the intra-visit coefficient of repeatability of the CamBlobs2 compared with the near Pelli-Robson test, and the limits of agreement between these two tests on normally-sighted subjects. METHODS: Twenty-two normally-sighted subjects (mean age 28 ± 4 years) completed two trials of the near Pelli-Robson and CamBlobs2 contrast sensitivity tests within a single visit. Tests were performed monocularly on each eye in random order. Pelli-Robson tests were scored as 0.05 logCS for each letter read correctly after deducting the first triplet. CamBlob2 tests were scored as the highest line where two or fewer blobs were marked correctly. The coefficient of repeatability was determined as 1.96 times the standard deviation of the difference between the two measurements using the same type of chart on the same eye. The limits of agreement between the two tests were evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: The mean difference between intra-visit measurements for both the near Pelli-Robson and CamBlobs2 was less than 0.05 logCS and the coefficient of repeatability was within ±0.20 log CS for both left and right eyes. The mean ± standard deviation differences between near Pelli-Robson and CamBlobs2 scores was -0.08 ± 0.08 (limits of agreement: -0.24 to 0.09) for right eyes and -0.05 ± 0.10 (limits of agreement: -0.23 to 0.14) logCS for left eyes based on average measurements. CONCLUSIONS: The intra-visit repeatability of CamBlobs2 was consistent with the near Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity test (±0.20 logCS). With a 0.05 correction, the CamBlobs2 scores showed excellent agreement with the near Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity test.

Greater higher order aberrations induced by toric orthokeratology versus soft toric multifocal contact lens wear.

PURPOSE: Spherical orthokeratology and soft multifocal contact lenses are commonly used for myopia control and correction, but have been shown to increase spherical aberration, coma and total higher order root mean square (HORMS) aberrations. There are limited myopia control contact lens options for patients with moderate to high astigmatism. The purpose of this study was to quantify changes in higher order aberrations (HOA) in myopic astigmatic eyes fitted with toric orthokeratology (TOK) and soft toric multifocal (STM) contact lenses. METHODS: Ocular wavefront aberrations were measured in both eyes of 30 adult subjects and are reported through the 6th radial order over a 5 mm, dilated pupil. All eyes met refractive criteria of myopia (-5.00 D to plano) and cylinder (-3.50 to -1.25 D). Three measurements were taken at baseline and after 10 ± 2 days of lens wear (TOK, STM). Sixteen subjects achieved logMAR high contrast visual acuity of 0.30 or better in both eyes and were included in this analysis. Repeated measures analysis of variance and post-hoc paired t-tests were used, as appropriate, with Benjamini-Hochberg correction. RESULTS: Higher order root mean square, spherical aberration (C12), and coma RMS (C7, C8) increased with TOK (0.641 [0.222], 0.409 [0.157], 0.426 [0.187] µm, respectively) and STM (0.481 [0.107], 0.223 [0.139], 0.320 [0.130] µm, respectively) from baseline (all p < 0.001). TOK was elevated compared to STM for HORMS (p = 0.03), spherical aberration (p = 0.001) and coma RMS (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Toric orthokeratology induced more HORMS, spherical aberration and coma RMS than STM in myopic astigmats; however, both lens types showed an increase in HOA compared to baseline, which placed patients outside the age and pupil size matched normative ranges. While the optical changes that accompany these modalities are helpful for myopia management, the induction of HOAs may have unintended consequences on visual performance.

A Randomized Trial of Objective Spectacle Prescriptions for Adults with Down Syndrome: Baseline Data and Methods.

SIGNIFICANCE: It is difficult to determine the most efficacious refractive correction for individuals with Down syndrome using routine clinical techniques. New objective methods that optimize spectacle corrections for this population may reduce limitations on daily living by improving visual quality. PURPOSE: This article describes the methods and baseline characteristics of study participants in a National Eye Institute-sponsored clinical trial to evaluate objectively derived spectacle corrections in adults with Down syndrome. Intersession repeatability of the primary outcome measure (distance visual acuity) is also reported. METHODS: Adults with Down syndrome were enrolled into a nine-visit study to compare clinically derived spectacle corrections and two different objective spectacle corrections derived from wavefront aberration data. Spectacle corrections were randomized and dispensed for 2 months each. Distance visual acuity was measured with a Bailey-Lovie-style chart. Intersession repeatability of acuity was established by performing difference versus mean analysis from binocular acuity measures obtained through habitual corrections at visits 1 and 2. RESULTS: Thirty adults (mean ± standard deviation age, 29 ± 10 years) with a large range of refractive errors were enrolled. Presenting visual acuity at visit 1 was reduced (right eye, 0.47 ± 0.20 logMAR; left eye, 0.42 ± 0.17 logMAR). The mean difference between visits 1 and 2 was 0.02 ± 0.06 logMAR, with a coefficient of repeatability (1.96 × within-subject standard deviation) of 0.12 logMAR. CONCLUSIONS: This study seeks to investigate new strategies to determine optical corrections that may reduce commonly observed visual deficits in individuals with Down syndrome. The good intersession repeatability of acuity found in this study (six letters) indicates that, despite the presence of reduced acuity, adults with Down syndrome performed the outcome measure for this clinical trial reliably.

Orientation-specific long-term neural adaptation of the visual system in keratoconus.

Eyes with the corneal ectasia keratoconus have performed better than expected (e.g. visual acuity) given their elevated levels of higher-order aberrations that cause rotationally asymmetric retinal blur. Adapted neural processing has been suggested as an explanation but has not been measured across multiple meridional orientations. Using a custom Maxwellian-view laser interferometer to bypass ocular optics, sinusoidal grating neural contrast sensitivity was measured in six eyes (three subjects) with keratoconus and four typical eyes (two subjects) at six spatial frequencies and eight orientations using a two-interval forced-choice paradigm. Total measurement duration was 24 to 28 hours per subject. Neural contrast sensitivity functions of typical eyes agreed with literature and generally showed the oblique effect on a linear-scale and rotational symmetry on a log-scale (rotational symmetry was quantified as the ratio of the minor and major radii of an ellipse fit to all orientations within each spatial frequency; typical eye mean 0.93, median 0.93; where a circle = 1). Mean sensitivities of eyes with keratoconus were 20% to 60% lower (at lower and higher spatial frequencies respectively) than typical eyes. Orientation-specific neural contrast sensitivity functions in keratoconus showed substantial rotational asymmetry (ellipse radii ratio: mean 0.84; median 0.86) and large meridional reductions. The visual image quality metric VSX was used with a permutation test to combine the asymmetric optical aberrations of the eyes with keratoconus and their measured asymmetric neural functions, which illustrated how the neural sensitivities generally mitigated the detrimental effects of the optics.

Quantifying the Optical and Physical Consequences of Daily Cleaning on Conventional and Wavefront-guided Scleral Lenses.

SIGNIFICANCE: An equivalent 12 months of cleaning did not induce significant changes in the optical aberrations or base curves of scleral lenses. PURPOSE: This study aimed to test whether an equivalent of 12 months of manual cleaning alters the optical and physical properties of conventional and wavefront-guided scleral lenses. METHODS: Twelve scleral lenses (four repeats of three designs, termed A, B, and C) were manufactured in Boston XO material: design A, -5.00 D defocus; design B, -5.00 D defocus with -0.153-µm vertical coma; and design C, -5.00 D defocus with a full custom wavefront-guided correction (second to fifth Zernike radial orders) of an eye with severe keratoconus. One lens of each design group served as a control and was not cleaned. To simulate a year of cleaning, seven individuals cleaned nine lenses (three from each group) twice a day for 27 days using the palm technique and commercially available cleaners, resulting in 378 cleanings of each lens. Lens aberrations were optically profiled and base curve radii were measured at baseline and after every 42nd cleaning. Differences in higher-order root mean square (HORMS) wavefront error and base curve radii associated with cleaning were compared with clinical benchmarks and using sign tests. RESULTS: For the experimental lenses, median change in Seidel spherical dioptric power was +0.01 D (maximum, +0.025 D). Median change in HORMS wavefront error was 0.013 µm (maximum, 0.019 µm). All lenses exhibited HORMS changes less than one-eighth equivalent diopters (P = .002). Median percentage change in HORMS wavefront error in the three wavefront-guided lenses was 0.96% (maximum, 1.25%). Median change in base curve radii was 0.00 mm, with all lenses exhibiting changes (P = .002), less than the American National Standards Institute tolerance of 0.05 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Cleaning over an equivalent 12-month period did not induce clinically significant changes in the optical or base curve properties of conventional or wavefront-guided scleral lenses.

Case Report: What Are We Doing for Our "20/20 Unhappy" Scleral Lens Patients?

SIGNIFICANCE: Scleral lenses (SLs) partially mask higher-order aberrations (HOAs) in highly aberrated eyes. Although visual acuity (VA) may show satisfactory quantitative clinical outcomes during SL wear, residual (uncorrected) HOAs can leave subjective visual quality goals unmet. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to report a case where a "20/20 unhappy" patient with SLs was able to meet visual goals with wavefront-guided SLs. CASE REPORT: A 40-year-old male with bilateral keratoconus, whose Snellen VA with SLs was 20/20 right eye (OD) 20/16 left eye (OS), reported halos and glare at night and perceptual smearing. When viewing a point of light, a "Ferris wheel" shadowing was observed OD and a U-shaped shadowing OS. Residual higher-order root mean square wavefront error was 0.49 µm OD and 0.39 µm OS; visual image quality measured by visual Strehl ratio was 0.067 OD and 0.092 OS (pupil size, 4.00 mm). Wavefront-guided SLs reduced residual higher-order root mean square to 0.19 µm OD and 0.25 µm OS, VA improved to 20/10 OD and 20/13 OS, and visual Strehl improved to 0.150 OD and 0.121 OS. The patient reported reduced smearing, shadowing, and night vision concerns, meeting his visual expectations and goals. CONCLUSIONS: Wavefront sensing quantifies both lower and HOAs, which can cause visual dissatisfaction in individuals with highly aberrated eyes, despite sometimes reaching typical levels of VA. As wavefront-guided SLs targeting these residual aberrations to improve visual image quality become more available, they should be considered for 20/20 unhappy patients when conventional clinical options are unsatisfactory.

The Impact of Misaligned Wavefront-guided Correction in a Scleral Lens for the Highly Aberrated Eye.

SIGNIFICANCE: To achieve maximum visual benefit, wavefront-guided scleral lens corrections (WGCs) are aligned with the underlying wavefront error of each individual eye. This requirement adds complexity to the fitting process. With a view toward simplification in lens fitting, this study quantified the consequences of placing WGCs at two pre-defined locations. PURPOSE: This study aimed to quantify performance reduction accompanying the placement of the WGC at two locations: (1) the average decentered location (ADL; average decentration observed across individuals wearing scleral lenses) and (2) the geometric center (GC) of the lens. METHODS: Deidentified residual aberration and lens translation data from 36 conventional scleral lens-wearing eyes with corneal ectasia were used to simulate WGC correction in silico. The WGCs were decentered from the eye-specific pupil position to both the ADL and GC locations. The impact of these misalignments was assessed in terms of change (from the aligned, eye-specific pupil position) in higher-order root mean square (HORMS) wavefront error, change in log of the visual Strehl ratio (logVSX), and predicted change in logMAR visual acuity (VA). RESULTS: As expected, HORMS increased, logVSX decreased, and predicted VA was poorer at both ADL and GC compared with the aligned condition (P < .001). Thirty-four of 36 eyes had greater residual HORMS, and 33 of 36 eyes had worse logVSX values at the GC than at the ADL. In clinical terms, 19 of 36 eyes at the ADL and 35 of 36 eyes at the GC had a predicted loss in VA of three letters or greater. CONCLUSIONS: The placement of the WGC at either ADL or GC is predicted to lead to a noticeable reduction in VA for more than half of the eyes studied, suggesting the simplification of the fitting process is not worth the cost in performance.

Understanding the Impact of Individual Perceived Image Quality Features on Visual Performance.

Purpose: This study aimed to quantify the impact of blur, contrast, and ghosting on perceived overall image quality (IQ) as well as resultant predicted visual acuity, utilizing simulated acuity charts from objective refraction among eyes of individuals with Down syndrome (DS). Methods: Acuity charts were produced, simulating the retinal image when applying 16 different metric-derived sphero-cylindrical refractions for each eye of 30 adult patients with DS. Fourteen dilated adult observers (normal vision) viewed subsets of logMAR acuity charts displayed on an LCD monitor monocularly through a unit magnification 3-mm aperture telescope. Observers rated features blur, ghosting, and contrast on 10-point scales (10 = poorest) and overall IQ on a 0- to 100-point scale (100 = best) and read each chart until five total letters were missed (logMAR technique). Mixed modeling was used to estimate feature influence on overall perceived IQ and relative acuity (compared with an unaberrated chart), separately. Results: Perceived IQ spanned the entire scale (mean = 59 ± 22) and average reduction in relative acuity was two lines (0.2 ± 0.14 logMAR). Perceived blur, ghosting, and contrast were individually correlated with overall IQ and relative acuity. Blur, contrast, and ghosting exert unique effects on overall perceived IQ (P < 0.05). Blur (b = -.009, P < 0.001) and ghosting (b = -.003, P < 0.001) influence relative acuity over and beyond their effects on overall IQ (b = .001, P < 0.0001) and contrast. Conclusions: Objectively identified refractions would ideally provide high contrast, low blur, and low ghosting. These data suggest that blur and ghosting may be given priority over contrast when improving acuity is the goal. Translational Relevance: Findings may guide objective refraction in clinical care.

Visual interaction of 2nd to 5th order Zernike aberration terms with vertical coma.

PURPOSE: In order to better understand the optical consequence of residual aberrations during conventional rigid contact lens wear in keratoconus, this study aimed to quantify the visual interaction between positive vertical coma (C(3, -1)) and other individual 2nd to 5th radial order Zernike aberration terms. METHODS: The experiment proceeded in two parts. First, two levels of C(3, -1) (target term) were simulated. Individual Zernike aberration terms from the 2nd to 5th radial orders (test terms) were combined in 0.05-µm steps a) from -2.00 µm to +2.00 µm with +1.00 µm of C(3, -1) and b) from -1.00 µm to +1.00 µm with +0.50 µm of C(3, -1). The resulting combinations were used to calculate the logarithm of the visual Strehl ratio (logVSX) and predict the relative beneficial or deleterious impact of the interaction. Second, for test terms where an interaction was predicted to provide more than a 0.25 logVSX benefit compared to C(3, -1) alone, high contrast logMAR acuity charts were constructed (simulating the manner in which the test + target term combinations would impact the retinal image of the chart), and randomly read by three well-corrected, typically-sighted individuals through a 3.0-mm diameter artificial pupil. RESULTS: When combined with positive C(3, -1), C(3, -3), C(4, -4), C(5, -5), C(5, -3), and C(5, -1) exhibited better visual image quality compared with C(3, -1) alone. Ratios of the test terms to target term providing maximal benefit remained constant for both +0.50 µm and +1.00 µm of C(3, -1). C(3, -3) and C(5, -1) had the largest predicted beneficial effect, with the maximal effect for +1.00 µm of C(3, -1) occurring with +0.35 µm of C(5, -1) and -1.00 µm of C(3, -3). When individuals read letter charts convolved with the point spread function derived from C(3, -1) combined with C(3, -3) and C(3, -1) combined with C(5, -1), the maximal beneficial effect was 0.27 logMAR (13.5 letters) for C(3, -3) and 0.36 logMAR (18 letters) for C(5, -1). CONCLUSIONS: While most interactions reduced visual image quality, combinations of C(3, -3) (vertical trefoil) and C(5, -1) (vertical secondary coma) provided a clinically relevant beneficial effect in the presence of C(3, -1) (vertical coma) which was demonstrated in both through-focus simulation and chart reading tests. Future work will examine whether these effects persist in the presence of the entire spectrum of residual aberrations seen in the eyes of individuals with keratoconus.

Combining optical and neural components in physiological visual image quality metrics as functions of luminance and age.

Visual image quality metrics combine comprehensive descriptions of ocular optics (from wavefront error) with a measure of the neural processing of the visual system (neural contrast sensitivity). To improve the ability of these metrics to track real-world changes in visual performance and to investigate the roles and interactions of those optical and neural components in foveal visual image quality as functions of age and target luminance, models of neural contrast sensitivity were constructed from the literature as functions of (1) retinal illuminance (Trolands, td), and (2) retinal illuminance and age. These models were then incorporated into calculation of the visual Strehl ratio (VSX). Best-corrected VSX values were determined at physiological pupil sizes over target luminances of 104 to 10-3 cd/m2 for 146 eyes spanning six decades of age. Optical and neural components of the metrics interact and contribute to visual image quality in three ways. At target luminances resulting in >900 td at physiological pupil size, neural processing is constant, and only aberrations (that change as pupil size changes with luminance) affect the metric. At low mesopic luminances below where pupil size asymptotes to maximum, optics are constant (maximum pupil), and only the neural component changes with luminance. Between these two levels, both optical and neural components of the metrics are affected by changes in target luminance. The model that accounted for both retinal illuminance and age allowed VSX, termed VSX(td,a), to best track visual acuity trends (measured at 160 and 200 cd/m2) as a function of age (20s through 70s) from the literature. Best-corrected VSX(td,a) decreased by 2.24 log units between maximum and minimum target luminances in the youngest eyes and by 2.58 log units in the oldest. The decrease due to age was more gradual at high target luminances (0.70 log units) and more pronounced as target luminance decreased (1.04 log units).

Alignment of a wavefront-guided scleral lens correction in the presence of a lens capsulotomy.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate the necessity of aligning a wavefront-guided scleral lens (WGSL) optical correction to the eye's effective pupil, with misalignments leading to reduced performance. CASE REPORT: A 34 year old subject with a history of failed LASIK in the left eye, leading to penetrating keratoplasty, extracapsular extraction of the crystalline lens and neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Nd:YAG) laser posterior capsulotomy, enrolled in a study examining WGSL performance. Habitual logMAR acuity OS (aided with a scleral lens) was +0.04. Residual higher order root mean square (HORMS) wavefront error (WFE) was 0.28 µm (Φ =4.75 mm, mean age-matched norm =0.17 µm), and objective over-refraction was -0.30 -0.54 × 008. When a WGSL (targeting aberrations up to the 5 th radial order) was manufactured with the wavefront-guided optics aligned to the center of the dilated pupil, logMAR acuity worsened to +0.15, residual HORMS WFE worsened to 0.44 µm (Φ =4.75 mm), and objective over-refraction increased to +1.19 -0.30 × 122. Slit lamp imagery revealed that the effective pupil was no longer defined by the iris of the eye, but rather the capsular opening created by the capsulotomy. When the WGSL was redesigned to align the wavefront-guided optics to the center of the capsular opening, logMAR acuity improved to -0.14, residual HORMS WFE reduced to 0.17 µm (Φ =4.75 mm) and objective over-refraction reduced to +0.20 -0.15 × 111. CONCLUSION: WGSLs are an emerging option for patients with highly aberrated, ectatic and post-surgical corneas whose visual symptoms cannot be alleviated with conventional corrections. However, alignment of the optics of the WGSL to the underlying optics of the eye over the effective pupil is critical in achieving good optical and visual performance.

Do Polymer Coatings Change the Aberrations of Conventional and Wavefront-guided Scleral Lenses?

SIGNIFICANCE: The findings of this study indicate that patients could simultaneously be offered the individualized optical correction of wavefront-guided (WFG) lenses and the superior comfort afforded by polymer coatings. This could be helpful to patients with ectasia suffering ocular dryness or dependent on scleral lenses for lengthy periods of wear. PURPOSE: Wavefront-guided scleral lenses target lower- and higher-order aberrations of individual eyes using submicrometer-level contours in the anterior lens surface. Hydrophilic polyethylene glycol (PEG) polymer coatings applied to lens surfaces improve comfort and wettability. This study aimed to quantify aberration changes (e.g., masking) when applying polymer coatings to WFG and conventional scleral lenses. METHODS: Two control lenses (remained uncoated) and 14 experimental lenses (two repeated builds of seven aberration designs: one spherical, two coma, four full WFG [second- to fifth-order aberrations]) were manufactured, and aberrations were measured (mean of three) by two operators before and after coating. Root mean square (RMS) and visual image quality (logVSX) differences were calculated for 6-mm diameters. RESULTS: Median RMS aberration change due to coating was 0.012 µm (range, 0.008 to 0.057 µm). Maximum logVSX change due to coating was 0.073, predicting an approximately one letter change in acuity. Instrument sensitivity was 0.002 µm. Acute instrument and operator variabilities (standard deviations of individual [second- to fifth-order Zernikes] were all <0.027 µm). Longitudinal variability (control lenses) was low: all less than 0.017 µm. Although RMS of differences between repeated builds of all lenses was less than 0.25 D and not statistically significant, relatively, manufacture constituted the major variability, and RMS difference between repeated builds was at least four times greater than the effect of coating (median, 0.167 µm; range, 0.088 to 0.312 µm). CONCLUSIONS: Application of polymer coatings caused measurable changes in aberrations of WFG and conventional scleral lenses; however, these were clinically and statistically insignificant and within variability of repeated lens manufacture. In their current states, WFG lenses and polymer coatings could be used simultaneously.

Impact of Pupil Diameter on Objective Refraction Determination and Predicted Visual Acuity.

PURPOSE: Objective refraction based on wavefront aberration measures is a potential tool for patients unable to participate in a subjective refraction, but the selection of a single pupil diameter for determination of the objective refraction may pose challenges. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of pupil diameter on determination of objective refractions for adults with and without Down syndrome (DS) and predicted change in acuity with increasing pupil diameter. METHODS: Wavefront error was obtained from 27 adults with DS and 24 controls, and metric-optimized refractions were identified for 4- and 6-mm pupil diameters. Total dioptric difference between refractions for the two pupil sizes was calculated, and repeated measures analysis of variance was used to evaluate differences in refractions. Next, five control observers read acuity charts produced to simulate image quality of each subject if the same refraction was applied for both a 4- and 6-mm pupil diameter. A comparison of acuity with performance on a clear chart was used to calculate letters lost for each chart. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to test for differences in letters lost from 4- and 6-mm diameters. RESULTS: The dioptric difference between refractions for 4- and 6-mm pupils was significantly greater in subjects with DS (0.51 diopters vs. 0.19 diopters, P = 0.0012). Letters lost for predicted acuity was less for the 4-mm diameter than 6 mm for charts representing DS eyes (6.5 letters vs. 11 letters, P < 0.0001), as well as for typical eyes (4.5 letters vs. 8 letters, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Differences between refractions by pupil diameter were similar to the repeatability of subjective refraction. Visual acuity differences were clinically small, suggesting similar performance for objective refractions with increasing pupil diameter. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: This work quantifies the potential impact of pupil diameter change on the performance of wavefront optimized refractions in clinical patients.