Interdevice agreement in the measurement of physiognomy parameters and frame angles to prescribe progressive addition lenses.
Ophthalmic lenses adaptation
presbyopia management
progressive addition lenses
Journal
Clinical & experimental optometry
ISSN: 1444-0938
Titre abrégé: Clin Exp Optom
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8703442
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2023
01 2023
Historique:
pubmed:
11
1
2022
medline:
13
1
2023
entrez:
10
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Ophthalmic lens adaptation requires accurate measurements of physiognomy parameters and frame angles, with a great impact on subject vision, especially when personalised progressive addition lenses are prescribed. The aim of this study is to describe interdevice agreement between different methods and traditional methods (frame ruler). The agreement of the interpupillary distance, nasopupillary distance and fitting point height measured with four devices (PD-5, OptiCenter, Visioffice and a frame ruler) and of pantoscopic and frame wrap angles measured with three devices (OptiCenter, Visioffice and Essilor standard ruler) was assessed in 21 healthy volunteers, by a Bland-Altman analysis; mean difference and limits of agreement (LoA) were calculated. Frame ruler nasopupillary distance measurements showed limited agreement with PD-5 [-0.38 ± 1.03 (LoA -2.40 to 1.64) and 0.44 ± 1.02 (LoA -1.72 to 2.61)] and Visioffice [0.62 ± 1.24 (LoA -1.81 to 3.05) and -0.16 ± 1.72 (LoA -3.54 to 3.22)] measurements for the right and left eyes, respectively. Poor agreement was found for interpupillary distances (PD-5 [0.21 ± 1.47 (LoA -2.67 to 3.09)], OptiCenter [-0.05 ± 1.16 (LoA -2.32 to 2.22)] and Visioffice [0.46 ± 1.95 (LoA -3.36 to 4.28)]), fitting point height (OptiCenter [-1.27 ± 2.56 (LoA -6.27 to 3.75) and -0.92 ± 2.77 (LoA -6.35 to 4.51)] and Visioffice [-5.88 ± 6.21 (LoA -18.05 to 6.29) and -5.98 ± 6.12 (LoA -17.98 to 6.02)] for the right and left eyes, respectively) and pantoscopic and frame wrap angles (OptiCenter [-4.13 ± 3.75 (LoA -11.48 to 3.22) and -1.09 ± 0.60 (LoA -2.27 to 0.09)] and Visioffice [-6.18 ± 3.53 (LoA -13.10 to 0.74) and -1.93 ± 3.49 (LoA -8.77 to 4.91)], respectively). These results suggest that measurements of physiognomy and frame angles are not interchangeable between assessed devices and that these differences could induce lens centration errors with a large impact on progressive addition lens prescriptions.
Sections du résumé
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Ophthalmic lens adaptation requires accurate measurements of physiognomy parameters and frame angles, with a great impact on subject vision, especially when personalised progressive addition lenses are prescribed.
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study is to describe interdevice agreement between different methods and traditional methods (frame ruler).
METHODS
The agreement of the interpupillary distance, nasopupillary distance and fitting point height measured with four devices (PD-5, OptiCenter, Visioffice and a frame ruler) and of pantoscopic and frame wrap angles measured with three devices (OptiCenter, Visioffice and Essilor standard ruler) was assessed in 21 healthy volunteers, by a Bland-Altman analysis; mean difference and limits of agreement (LoA) were calculated.
RESULTS
Frame ruler nasopupillary distance measurements showed limited agreement with PD-5 [-0.38 ± 1.03 (LoA -2.40 to 1.64) and 0.44 ± 1.02 (LoA -1.72 to 2.61)] and Visioffice [0.62 ± 1.24 (LoA -1.81 to 3.05) and -0.16 ± 1.72 (LoA -3.54 to 3.22)] measurements for the right and left eyes, respectively. Poor agreement was found for interpupillary distances (PD-5 [0.21 ± 1.47 (LoA -2.67 to 3.09)], OptiCenter [-0.05 ± 1.16 (LoA -2.32 to 2.22)] and Visioffice [0.46 ± 1.95 (LoA -3.36 to 4.28)]), fitting point height (OptiCenter [-1.27 ± 2.56 (LoA -6.27 to 3.75) and -0.92 ± 2.77 (LoA -6.35 to 4.51)] and Visioffice [-5.88 ± 6.21 (LoA -18.05 to 6.29) and -5.98 ± 6.12 (LoA -17.98 to 6.02)] for the right and left eyes, respectively) and pantoscopic and frame wrap angles (OptiCenter [-4.13 ± 3.75 (LoA -11.48 to 3.22) and -1.09 ± 0.60 (LoA -2.27 to 0.09)] and Visioffice [-6.18 ± 3.53 (LoA -13.10 to 0.74) and -1.93 ± 3.49 (LoA -8.77 to 4.91)], respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
These results suggest that measurements of physiognomy and frame angles are not interchangeable between assessed devices and that these differences could induce lens centration errors with a large impact on progressive addition lens prescriptions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35000565
doi: 10.1080/08164622.2021.2006042
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM