Cathleen Fedtke

A review of peripheral refraction techniques.

The recently discovered link between myopia development and peripheral refraction has triggered a stream of clinical and animal investigations to confirm the theory and to understand the underlying mechanisms. For this, precise peripheral refractometry has now gained importance in myopia research. For more than 70 years, many researchers have measured off-axis refraction of the eye in horizontal and sometimes vertical meridians over a range of angles, using several modified refraction techniques. These techniques varied not only with respect to the instrumentation used, but also the modifications performed to enable off-axis refraction. Modifications included either head or eye turn of the participant with respect to the peripheral angle tested or rotation of the instrument itself around the center of the eye. The main focus of this study is to review and compare all refraction techniques for off-axis measurements including necessary modifications made to equipment or procedures. Because a difference in instrumentation and techniques potentially limits the comparability of reported results, it is of particular importance to understand all the details of the particular refractometric technique chosen and any potential problems. Difficulties relating to all the methods are highlighted to provide information on preference and usefulness of certain peripheral refraction techniques for future technology and research work. All refraction techniques exhibited similar drawbacks, such as off-axis fixation, protraction when many peripheral angles were tested, and difficulties to obtain reliable measurements at large peripheral angles. Yet, from all the methods reviewed, the Shin-Nippon NVision K5001 open field autorefractor and the Hartmann-Shack wavefront sensor technique seem to be the most useful commercially available instruments to measure peripheral refraction.

Power profiles of single vision and multifocal soft contact lenses.

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to investigate the optical zone power profile of the most commonly prescribed soft contact lenses to assess their potential impact on peripheral refractive error and hence myopia progression. METHODS The optical power profiles of six single vision and ten multifocal contact lenses of five manufacturers in the powers -1.00 D, -3.00 D, and -6.00 D were measured using the SHSOphthalmic (Optocraft GmbH, Erlangen, Germany). Instrument repeatability was also investigated. RESULTS Instrument repeatability was dependent on the distance from the optical centre, manifesting unreliable data for the central 1mm of the optic zone. Single vision contact lens measurements of -6.00 D lenses revealed omafilcon A having the most negative spherical aberration, lotrafilcon A having the least. Somofilcon A had the highest minus power and lotrafilcon A the biggest deviation in positive direction, relative to their respective labelled powers. Negative spherical aberration occurred for almost all of the multifocal contact lenses, including the centre-distance designs etafilcon A bifocal and omafilcon A multifocal. Lotrafilcon B and balafilcon A seem to rely predominantly on the spherical aberration component to provide multifocality. CONCLUSIONS Power profiles of single vision soft contact lenses varied greatly, many having a negative spherical aberration profile that would exacerbate myopia. Some lens types and powers are affected by large intra-batch variability or power offsets of more than 0.25 dioptres. Evaluation of power profiles of multifocal lenses was derived that provides helpful information for prescribing lenses for presbyopes and progressing myopes.

The entrance pupil of the human eye: a three-dimensional model as a function of viewing angle

Precise peripheral ocular measurements have become important in vision research. These measurements are influenced by the shape and position of the peripherally observed entrance pupil. A long-held assumption is that its apparent shape is elliptical and is optically centered in its position. Our three-dimensional model shows that as viewing angle increases, the entrance pupil moves forward, tilts and curves towards the observer’s direction. Moreover, the tangential pupil size narrows and exhibits asymmetric distortions. Consequently, its shape is non-elliptical and its geometric mid-point departs from the optical center. These findings may have implications on the accuracy of peripheral ocular measurements.

The BHVI-EyeMapper: Peripheral Refraction and Aberration Profiles

Purpose The aim of this article was to present the optical design of a new instrument (BHVI-EyeMapper, EM), which is dedicated to rapid peripheral wavefront measurements across the visual field for distance and near, and to compare the peripheral refraction and higher-order aberration profiles obtained in myopic eyes with and without accommodation. Methods Central and peripheral refractive errors (M, J180, and J45) and higher-order aberrations (C[3, 1], C[3, 3], and C[4, 0]) were measured in 26 myopic participants (mean [±SD] age, 20.9 [±2.0] years; mean [±SD] spherical equivalent, −3.00 [±0.90] diopters [D]) corrected for distance. Measurements were performed along the horizontal visual field with (−2.00 to −5.00 D) and without (+1.00 D fogging) accommodation. Changes as a function of accommodation were compared using tilt and curvature coefficients of peripheral refraction and aberration profiles. Results As accommodation increased, the relative peripheral refraction profiles of M and J180 became significantly (p < 0.05) more negative and the profile of M became significantly (p < 0.05) more asymmetric. No significant differences were found for the J45 profiles (p > 0.05). The peripheral aberration profiles of C[3, 1], C[3, 3], and C[4, 0] became significantly (p < 0.05) less asymmetric as accommodation increased, but no differences were found in the curvature. Conclusions The current study showed that significant changes in peripheral refraction and higher-order aberration profiles occurred during accommodation in myopic eyes. With its extended measurement capabilities, that is, permitting rapid peripheral refraction and higher-order aberration measurements up to visual field angles of ±50 degrees for distance and near (up to −5.00 D), the EM is a new advanced instrument that may provide additional insights in the ongoing quest to understand and monitor myopia development.

Lateral pupil alignment tolerance in peripheral refractometry.

Purpose. To investigate the tolerance to lateral pupil misalignment in peripheral refraction compared with central refraction. Methods. A Shin-Nippon NVision-K5001 open-view auto-refractor was used to measure central and peripheral refraction (30° temporal and 30° nasal visual field) of the right eyes of 10 emmetropic and 10 myopic participants. At each of the three fixation angles, five readings were recorded for each of the following alignment positions relative to pupil center: centrally aligned, 1 and 2 mm temporally aligned, and 1 and 2 mm nasally aligned. Results. For central fixation, increasing dealignment from pupil center produced a quadratic decrease (r ≥0.98, p < 0.04) in the refractive power vectors M and J180 which, when interpolated, reached clinical significance (i.e., ≥0.25 diopter for M and ≥0.125 diopter for J180 and J45) for an alignment error of 0.79 mm or greater. M and J180 as measured in the 30° temporal and 30° nasal visual field led to a significant linear correlation (r ≥0.94, p < 0.02) as pupil dealignment gradually changed from temporal to nasal. As determined from regression analysis, a pupil alignment error of 0.20 mm or greater would introduce errors in M and J180 that are clinically significant. Conclusions. Tolerance to lateral pupil alignment error decreases strongly in the periphery compared with the greater tolerance in central refraction. Thus, precise alignment of the entrance pupil with the instrument axis is critical for accurate and reliable peripheral refraction.

Visual performance of single vision and multifocal contact lenses in non-presbyopic myopic eyes

PURPOSE To assess visual performance of single vision and multifocal soft contact lenses. METHODS At baseline, forty-four myopic participants (aged 18-35 years) were fitted bilaterally with a control lens (AirOptix Aqua). At the four follow-up visits, a total of 16 study lenses (5 single vision, 11 multifocal lenses) were fitted contralaterally. After 1h of lens wear, participants rated (scale 1-10) vision clarity (distance, intermediate and near), magnitude of ghosting at distance, comfort during head movement, and overall comfort. Distance high contrast visual acuity (HCVA), central refraction and higher order aberrations, and contact lens centration were measured. RESULTS For single vision lenses, vision ratings were not significantly different to the control (p>0.005). The control outperformed Acuvue Oasys, Clariti Monthly and Night and Day in HCVA (mean VA: -0.10 ± 0.07 logMAR, p<0.005). Most refraction and higher order aberration measures were not different between lenses. The Night and Day lens showed greatest differences compared to the control, i.e., C[4, 0] was more positive (p<0.005) at distance (Δ=0.019 μm) and near (Δ=0.028 μm). For multifocal lenses, the majority of vision ratings (84%) were better with the control (p<0.005). HCVA was better with the control (p<0.005). Proclear Multifocal lenses showed greatest differences for M, C[3, -1] and C[4, 0] at distance and near, and were inferiorly de-centered (p<0.005). CONCLUSION Design differences between single vision lenses had a small impact on visual performance. Lenses featuring multifocality decreased visual performance, in particular when power variations across the optic zone were large and/or the lens was significantly de-centered.

Impact of Spherical Aberration Terms on Multifocal Contact Lens Performance

PURPOSE To investigate the impact of the primary (PSA) and secondary (SSA) spherical aberration terms on visual performance (VP) in presbyopes, as measured using multifocal (MFCL) soft contact lenses on eye. METHODS Seventeen presbyopes (age: 55.1 ± 6.9 years) wore seven commercial lenses (four center-near (MFCL N), one center-distance (MFCL D), one bifocal, and one single vision control). Unaided and with each lens on eye, the PSA and SSA terms were obtained with an aberrometer, the BHVI-EyeMapper (low illumination, natural and 4 mm pupil diameter). High- and low-contrast distance visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, high-contrast visual acuities at near, and range of clear vision were measured. In addition, subjective VP variables included clarity of vision at distance and near, ghosting, and overall vision satisfaction. Pearsons correlation was used to determine the association between the PSA and SSA terms and the VP variables. RESULTS PSA (natural pupil) was more negative (P < .05) with the MFCL N (mean PSA = -0.053 ± 0.080 μm) and bifocal (PSA = +0.005 ± 0.067 μm) lenses and more positive with the MFCL D lens (PSA = +0.208 ± 0.160 μm) than the control (+0.067 ± 0.072 μm). SSA (natural pupil) was significantly more positive for the MFCL N lenses (mean SSA = +0.025 ± 0.029 μm) compared to the control (SSA = -0.001 ± 0.017 μm). PSA and SSA terms were significantly (P < .05) correlated with 78% and 56% of VP variables, respectively, but the correlation coefficients were weak, ranging between |0.210| and |0.334|. Although distance variables showed improved VP with more positive PSA or negative SSA, most near variables showed improved VP with more negative PSA. Range of clear focus was greater for more negative PSA terms. CONCLUSIONS The amount and direction of PSA and SSA terms, as measured with different MFCLs on eye, can affect VP at different distances. Results of this study may provide useful information when designing new or optimize existing MFCLs for improved VP at specific distances.

Peripheral refraction and higher-order aberrations with cycloplegia and fogging lenses using the BHVI-EyeMapper

Purpose To determine if a fogging lens ameliorates accommodative effects driven by the closed-view design of the BHVI-EyeMapper (EM) instrument. We compared cycloplegic refraction and higher-order aberration measurements of the EM with those obtained with a fogging lens. Methods Twenty-six, young, participants (15F, 25 ± 5 years, range: 18–35 years, SE: +0.25 D and −3.50 D) with good ocular health were recruited. Five independent measurements of on- and off-axis refraction and higher-order aberrations were recorded across the horizontal visual field, under two conditions: non-cycloplegic measurements with +1.00 D fogging lens and cycloplegia, always in the same sequence. The contralateral eye was occluded during the measurements. Two drops of 1% Tropicamide delivered within 5 min facilitated cycloplegic measurements. All participants were refracted 30 min after installation of the second drop. Results Mean spherical equivalent measures of the non-cycloplegic condition were significantly more myopic than their cycloplegic counterparts (p < 0.05); approximately by 0.50 D centrally, increasing to 1.00 D towards the periphery. The horizontal astigmatic component, J180, demonstrated small but statistically significant differences between the test conditions. Differences were predominant for eccentricities greater than 30°, in both nasal and temporal meridians. The oblique astigmatic component, J45, was not significantly different between the test conditions. The primary spherical aberration coefficient C(4, 0) was significantly less positive for the non-cycloplegic state than its cycloplegic counterpart. This result held true across the entire horizontal visual field. The horizontal coma and trefoil coefficients C(3, 1) and C(3, 3) were not significantly different between the two conditions. Conclusions The use of +1.00 D fogging lens without cycloplegia did not provide complete relaxation of accommodation. The discrepancies between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic EM measurements were found to be more pronounced for peripheral field angles than central measures, for both M and J180 components.

Comparing the relative peripheral refraction effect of single vision and multifocal contact lenses measured using an autorefractor and an aberrometer: A pilot study

PURPOSE To compare the contributions of single vision (SVCL) and multifocal contact lenses (MFCL) to the relative peripheral refraction (RPR) profiles obtained via an autorefractor and an aberrometer in a pilot study. METHODS Two instruments, Shin-Nippon NVision K5001 (SN) and COAS-HD, were modified to permit open field PR measurements. Two myopic adults (CF, RB) were refracted (cycloplegia) under eight conditions: baseline (no CL); three SVCLs: Focus Dailies(®) (Alcon, USA), PureVision(®) (Bausch & Lomb, USA) and AirOptix(®) (Alcon, USA); and four MFCLs: AirOptix(®) (Alcon, USA), Proclear(®) Distant and Near (Cooper Vision, USA), and PureVision(®) (Bausch & Lomb, USA). CLs had a distance prescription of -2.00D and for MFCLs, a +2.50D Add was selected. Five independent measurements were performed at field angles from -40° to +40° in 10° increments with both instruments. The COAS-HD measures were analyzed at 3mm pupil diameter. Results are reported as a change in the relative PR profile, as refractive power vector components: M, J180, and J45. RESULTS Overall, at baseline, M, J180 and J45 measures obtained with SN and COAS-HD were considerably different only for field angles ≥±30°, which agreed well with previous studies. With respect to M, this observation held true for most SVCLs with a few exceptions. The J180 measures obtained with COAS-HD were considerably greater in magnitude than those acquired with SN. For SVCLs, the greatest difference was found at -40° for AirOptix SV (ΔCF=3.20D, ΔRB=1.56D) and for MFCLs it was for Proclear Distance at -40° (ΔCF=2.58D, ΔRB=1.39D). The J45 measures obtained with SN were noticeably different to the respective measures with COAS-HD, both in magnitude and sign. The greatest difference was found with AirOptix Multifocal in subject RB at -40°, where the COAS-HD measurement was 1.50D more positive. In some cases, the difference in the RPR profiles observed between subjects appeared to be associated with CL decentration. CONCLUSION For most test conditions, distinct differences were observed between the RPR measures obtained with the two modified instruments. The differences varied with CL design and centration. Although the pilot study supports the interchangeable use of the two instruments for on- and off-axis refraction in unaided eyes or eyes corrected with low/no spherical aberration; we advocate the use of the COAS-HD over the SN for special purposes like refracting through multifocal CLs.

Validation of a quasi real-time global aberrometer: the EyeMapper

Interest in measuring peripheral refraction rapidly and accurately has been stimulated by increasing evidence that the eyes peripheral refractive state can influence axial growth. In response to this, a new clinical instrument, the EyeMapper, was developed which performs quasi real-time global (central and peripheral) refraction measurements of the human eye. The EyeMapper is an aberrometer comprising a unique deflection system to permit an extremely rapid visual field scan. Refraction measurements are taken from -50° to +50° in 10° steps within 0.45 seconds. Multiple pupil imaging paths through the deflection system provide improved lateral and axial pupil alignment, and by rotating the instrument around its main optical axis, global power maps of the eye can be generated. Using a model eye with a pivoting and translating reflective surface to simulate the peripheral and central retina, the EyeMapper was cross-validated against a conventional aberrometer (COAS-HD, Wavefront Sciences, USA) and an autorefractor (Shin-Nippon NVision K5001, Japan). In addition, the right eyes of ten participants were measured across the horizontal visual field and in one eye, refraction measurements were performed globally. Overall, the EyeMapper showed good agreement and improved repeatability when compared to the other two instruments.