The Impact of Misaligned Wavefront-guided Correction in a Scleral Lens for the Highly Aberrated Eye.
Journal
Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry
ISSN: 1538-9235
Titre abrégé: Optom Vis Sci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8904931
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2020
09 2020
Historique:
entrez:
25
9
2020
pubmed:
26
9
2020
medline:
17
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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). 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. 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32976324
doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001577
pii: 00006324-202009000-00013
pmc: PMC7523500
mid: NIHMS1618944
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
732-740Subventions
Organisme : NEI NIH HHS
ID : P30 EY007551
Pays : United States
Organisme : NEI NIH HHS
ID : R01 EY019105
Pays : United States
Références
Sabesan R, Johns L, Tomashevskaya O, et al. Wavefront-guided Scleral Lens Prosthetic Device for Keratoconus. Optom Vis Sci 2013;90:314–23.
Marsack JD, Ravikumar A, Nguyen C, et al. Wavefront-guided Scleral Lens Correction in Keratoconus. Optom Vis Sci 2014;91:1221–30.
Hastings GD, Applegate RA, Nguyen LC, et al. Comparison of Wavefront-guided and Best Conventional Scleral Lenses After Habituation in Eyes with Corneal Ectasia. Optom Vis Sci 2019;96:238–47.
Schornack MM. Scleral Lenses: A Literature Review. Eye Contact Lens 2015;41:3–11.
Rathi VR, Mandathara PS, Taneja M, et al. Scleral Lens for Keratoconus: Technology Update. Clin Ophthalmol 2015;9:2013–8.
Jinabhai AN. Customised Aberration-controlling Corrections for Keratoconic Patients Using Contact Lenses. Clin Exp Optom 2020;103:31–43.
Visser ES, Van Der Linden BJ, Otten HM, et al. Medical Applications and Outcomes of Bitangential Scleral Lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2013;90:1078–85.
Ticak A, Marsack JD, Koenig DE, et al. A Comparison of Three Methods to Increase Scleral Contact Lens On-eye Stability. Eye Contact Lens 2015;41:386–90.
Vincent SJ, Alonso-Caneiro D, Collins MJ. The Temporal Dynamics of Miniscleral Contact Lenses: Central Corneal Clearance and Centration. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2018;41:162–8.
Vincent SJ, Collins MJ. A Topographical Method to Quantify Scleral Contact Lens Decentration. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2019;42:462–6.
Vincent SJ, Fadel D. Optical Considerations for Scleral Contact Lenses: A Review. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2019;42:598–13.
Kowalski LP, Collins MJ, Vincent SJ. Scleral Lens Centration: The Influence of Centre Thickness, Scleral Topography, and Apical Clearance [published online December 10, 2019]. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2019.11.013.
doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2019.11.013
Guirao A, Cox IG, Williams DR. Method for Optimizing the Correction of the Eye's Higher-order Aberrations in the Presence of Decentrations. J Opt Soc Am (A) 2002;19:126–8.
Shi Y, Queener HM, Marsack JD, et al. Optimizing Wavefront-guided Corrections for Highly Aberrated Eyes in the Presence of Registration Uncertainty. J Vis 2013;13:1–15.
Guirao A, Williams DR, Cox IG. Effect of Rotation and Translation on the Expected Benefit of an Ideal Method to Correct the Eye's Higher-order Aberrations. J Opt Soc Am (A) 2001;18:1003–15.
Brabander JD, Chateau N, Marin G, et al. Simulated Optical Performance of Custom Wavefront Soft Contact Lenses for Keratoconus. Optom Vis Sci 2003;80:637–43.
Yoon G, Jeong TM. Effect of the Movement of Customized Contact Lens on Visual Benefit in Abnormal Eyes. J Vis 2003;3:38.
Thibos LN, Applegate RA, Schwiegerling JT, et al. Standards for Reporting the Optical Aberrations of Eyes. J Refract Surg 2002;18:S652–60.
Dai G. Wavefront Optics for Vision Correction. Washington, DC: Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers; 2008.
Thibos LN, Hong X, Bradley A, et al. Accuracy and Precision of Objective Refraction from Wavefront Aberrations. J Vis 2004;4:329–51.
Gumus K, Gire A, Pflugfelder SC. The Impact of the Boston Ocular Surface Prosthesis on Wavefront Higher-order Aberrations. Am J Ophthalmol 2011;151:682–90.
Salmon TO, van de Pol C. Normal-eye Zernike Coefficients and Root-mean-square Wavefront Errors. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006;32:2064–74.
Applegate RA, Sarver EJ, Khemsara V. Are All Aberrations Equal? J Refract Surg 2002;18:S556–62.
Applegate RA, Marsack JD, Ramos R, et al. Interaction between Aberrations to Improve or Reduce Visual Performance. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003;29:1487–95.
McLellan JS, Prieto PM, Marcos S, et al. Effects of Interactions among Wave Aberrations on Optical Image Quality. Vision Res 2006;46:3009–16.
Hastings GD, Marsack JD, Thibos LN, et al. Normative Best-corrected Values of the Visual Image Quality Metric VSX as a Function of Age and Pupil Size. J Opt Soc Am (A) 2018;35:732–9.
Marsack JD, Thibos LN, Applegate RA. Metrics of Optical Quality Derived from Wave Aberrations Predict Visual Performance. J Vis 2004;4:322–8.
Ravikumar A, Marsack JD, Bedell HE, et al. Change in Visual Acuity Is Well Correlated with Change in Image-quality Metrics for Both Normal and Keratoconic Wavefront Errors. J Vis 2013;13:1–16.
Elliot DB, Yang KC, Whitaker D. Visual Acuity Changes throughout Adulthood in Normal, Healthy Eyes: Seeing beyond 6/6. Optom Vis Sci 1995;72:186–91.
Raasch TW, Bailey IL, Bullimore MA. Repeatability of Visual Acuity Measurement. Optom Vis Sci 1998;75:342–8.
Hastings GD, Marsack JD, Nguyen LC, et al. Is an Objective Refraction Optimised Using the Visual Strehl Ratio Better Than a Subjective Refraction? Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2017;37:317–25.
Shi Y, Applegate RA, Wei X, et al. Registration Tolerance of a Custom Correction to Maintain Visual Acuity. Optom Vis Sci 2013;90:1370–84.
Hastings GD, Zanayed JZ, Nguyen LC, et al. Do Polymer Coatings Change the Aberrations of Conventional and Wavefront-guided Scleral Lenses? Optom Vis Sci 2020;97:28–35.