Aviso: para depositar documentos, por favor, inicia sesión e identifícate con tu cuenta de correo institucional de la UCM con el botón MI CUENTA UCM. No emplees la opción AUTENTICACIÓN CON CONTRASEÑA
 

A Comparison between Automated Subjective Refraction and Traditional Subjective Refraction in Keratoconus Patients

dc.contributor.authorCarracedo Rodríguez, Juan Gonzalo
dc.contributor.authorCarpena Torres, Carlos
dc.contributor.authorPastrana Robles, Cristina
dc.contributor.authorPrivado Aroco, Ana
dc.contributor.authorSerramito Blanco, María
dc.contributor.authorEspinosa Vidal, Teresa M.
dc.contributor.authorRodríguez-Lafora Lorente, María
dc.date.accessioned2023-06-17T09:12:39Z
dc.date.available2023-06-17T09:12:39Z
dc.date.issued2021-06
dc.descriptionSubmitted: July 9, 2020 / Accepted: February 8, 2021.
dc.description.abstractSIGNIFICANCE: The performance of the Eye Refract (Luneau Technology, Chartres, France), a new instrument to perform aberrometry-based automated subjective refraction, has been previously evaluated in healthy subjects. However, its clinical implications in other ocular conditions are still unknown. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the agreement between the Eye Refract and the traditional subjective refraction, as the criterion standard, in keratoconus patients with and without intracorneal ring segments (ICRSs). METHODS: A total of 50 eyes of 50 keratoconus patients were evaluated, dividing the sample into 2 groups: 27 eyes without ICRS (37.78 ± 9.35 years) and 23 eyes with ICRS (39.26 ± 13.62 years). An optometrist conducted the refraction with the Eye Refract, and another different optometrist conducted the traditional subjective refraction on the same day. Spherical equivalent (M), cylindrical vectors (J0 and J45), and corrected distance visual acuity were compared between both methods of refraction. In addition, Bland-Altman analysis was performed to assess the agreement between both methods of refraction. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences (P ≥ .05) between the Eye Refract and the traditional subjective refraction for all the variables under study in either group. Without ICRS, the mean difference and 95% limits of agreement (upper, lower) were −0.20 (+1.50, −1.89) D for M, −0.14 (+1.40, −1.68) D for J0, and +0.05 (+1.23, −1.14) D for J45. With ICRS, these values worsened to −0.62 (+3.89, −5.12) D for M, +0.06 (+2.46, −2.34) D for J0, and −0.02 (+2.23, −2.28) D for J45. CONCLUSIONS: The Eye Refract seems to offer similar results compared with the traditional subjective refraction in keratoconus patients not implanted with ICRS. However, some patients could show abnormal measurements, especially those with ICRS, who should be treated with caution in clinical practice.
dc.description.departmentDepto. de Optometría y Visión
dc.description.facultyFac. de Óptica y Optometría
dc.description.refereedTRUE
dc.description.statuspub
dc.eprint.idhttps://eprints.ucm.es/id/eprint/67572
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/OPX.0000000000001710
dc.identifier.issn1040-5488
dc.identifier.officialurlhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000001710
dc.identifier.relatedurlhttps://journals.lww.com/optvissci/pages/default.aspx
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/8401
dc.issue.number6
dc.journal.titleOptometry and Vision Science
dc.language.isoeng
dc.page.final604
dc.page.initial597
dc.publisherLippincott Williams & Wilkins
dc.rights.accessRightsrestricted access
dc.subject.cdu617.713‑003.87
dc.subject.cdu617.753
dc.subject.keywordKeratoconus
dc.subject.keywordAberrometry
dc.subject.keywordOcular refraction
dc.subject.keywordSubjetive refraction
dc.subject.keywordVision tests
dc.subject.keywordCorneal topography
dc.subject.keywordCorneal surgery
dc.subject.ucmCirugía
dc.subject.ucmOftalmología
dc.subject.ucmOptometría
dc.subject.unesco3213 Cirugía
dc.subject.unesco3201.09 Oftalmología
dc.subject.unesco2209.15 Optometría
dc.titleA Comparison between Automated Subjective Refraction and Traditional Subjective Refraction in Keratoconus Patients
dc.typejournal article
dc.volume.number98
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isAuthorOfPublication97433353-d31b-4cf5-b2c0-47d2e6703fe5
relation.isAuthorOfPublication4f02194c-ec22-49e9-8e60-937801ef8ac5
relation.isAuthorOfPublication02a080c4-e7d5-4c6a-9b3c-0c5bb61c00bf
relation.isAuthorOfPublication36f13921-2a31-49ff-9a32-b67293766687
relation.isAuthorOfPublication1ed070b9-44c7-486f-8475-407fbccbd9b7
relation.isAuthorOfPublication31461994-7f8e-44b3-8ced-85cc53dec442
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery97433353-d31b-4cf5-b2c0-47d2e6703fe5

Download

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
00006324-202106000-00009.pdf
Size:
466.29 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format

Collections