J Korean Ophthalmol Soc.  2021 May;62(5):680-687. 10.3341/jkos.2021.62.5.680.

Usefulness of Refractive Measurement by Wavefront Aberrometer in Children

• Oh SE
• Whang WJ
• Park MR

• KMID: 2515951
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2021.62.5.680

Abstract

Purpose
To compare the refractive measurements from a wavefront aberrometer, autorefractor, and retinoscopy after cycloplegia in evaluating the usefulness and validity of refractive measurements by a wavefront aberrometer in children.
Methods
A total of 130 eyes of 65 children, aged from 3 to 16 years, were examined using retinoscopy, a wavefront aberrometer (OPD-Scan III), and an autorefractor (KR-1) after cycloplegia. Refractive measurements were converted to power vectors (M, J₀, and J₄₅) and cylindrical absolute values for statistical analysis. The agreement between instruments was assessed and the correlations of measurements were evaluated. Subgroup analysis was performed on two subgroups: one representing less refractive error (|M| < 2 D on cycloplegic retinoscopy) and the other with larger refractive error (|M| ≥ 2 D on cycloplegic retinoscopy).
Results
Compared with retinoscopy readings, the aberrometer and autorefractor yielded more myopic values (p = 0.007, p < 0.001). In the less refractive error group, the autorefractor results showed statistically significant differences from retinoscopy readings for M, J₀, and J₄₅ and the cylindrical absolute value (all p < 0.05); there were no statistically significant differences between M, J₀, and J₄₅ vectors of the aberrometer and those obtained using retinoscopy (p = 0.674, p = 0.699, p = 0.766). With the larger refractive error group, the M vectors of the aberrometer and autorefractor showed more myopic values than the M vector retinoscopy readings; the differences were statistically significant (all p < 0.001).
Conclusions
The wavefront aberrometer yielded refraction readings closer to those obtained with retinoscopy than the automated refraction in the less refractive error group. With a larger refractive error, statistically significant differences (all p < 0.001) were found among the aberrometer, autorefractor, and retinoscopy readings.

Keyword

Aberrometry, Refraction, Retinoscopy