Mesopic Pupillometry in Pre-LASIK Patients by a Placido-Disc Topographer and Hartmann-Shack Aberrometer
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction: Precise pupillometry is crucial to determine ablation optical zone (OZ) size selection in LASIK. Significant difference in the selection induces unwanted postoperative night visual disturbance. Placido-disc topographer and Hartmann-Shack aberrometer are commonly used in LASIK preoperative assessment. However, little is known on the precision and agreement of these devices in pupillometry. Hence, this study aimed to evaluate the precision (repeatability and reproducibility) and inter-device agreement of a Placido-disc topographer and Hartmann-Shack aberrometer in measuring mesopic pupil size in pre-LASIK patients. Methods: Mesopic pupillometry on 38 pre-LASIK patients were performed using both devices by two masked operators, on two separate sessions. Intra-session repeatability, inter-operator reproducibility and inter-device agreement were analysed. A disagreement value of ±0.5 mm and 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were determined. Results: Hartmann-Shack aberrometer demonstrated higher repeatability and reproducibility than Placido-disc topographer in mesopic pupillometry. Ninety-seven percent and all of Hartmann-Shack wavefront aberrometer pupillometry were within ±0.5 mm in repeated sessions and between the operators, respectively. The mesopic pupil size obtained from Placido-disc topographer was significantly larger than Hartmann-Shack aberrometer results (P = 0.02). The agreement between devices was low (LoA > ±1 mm) and only 53% of Placido-disc topographer pupillometry were within ±0.5 mm of Hartmann-Shack aberrometer pupillometry. Conclusion: Hartmann-Shack aberrometer has higher precision within sessions and between operators, and it provides smaller mesopic pupillometry than Placido-disc topographer. Precise mesopic pupillometry could assist refractive surgeons in choosing a correct ablation OZ size during LASIK surgery to improve postoperative outcome.
Downloads
Article Details
References
Bühren J, Kühne C, Kohnen T. Influence of pupil and optical zone diameter on higher-order aberrations after wavefront-guided myopic LASIK. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31(12):2272–80.
Chan A, Manche EE. Effect of preoperative pupil size on quality of vision after wavefront-guided LASIK. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(4):736–41.
Rosen ES. The pupil and refractive surgery. Essential in Ophthalmology, Cataract and Refractive Surgery. In: Kohnen T, Koch DD, editors. Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2005.
Bradley JC, Bentley KC, Mughal AI, Brown SM. Clinical performance of a handheld digital infrared monocular pupillometer for measurement of the dark-adapted pupil diameter. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010;36(2):277–81.
Cakmak HB, Cagil N, Simavli H, Duzen B, Simsek S. Refractive error may influence mesopic pupil size. Curr Eye Res. 2010;35(2):130–6.
Maqsood F. Effects of varying light conditions and refractive error on pupil size. Cogent Med. 2017;4(1):1–7.
Rosen ES, Gore CL, Taylor D, Chitkara D, Howes F, Kowalewski E. Use of a digital infrared pupillometer to assess patient suitability for refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002;28(8):1433–8.
Kohnen T, Terzi E, Bühren J, Kohnen EM, Ackermann H. Comparison of a digital and a handheld infrared pupillometer for determining scotopic pupil diameter. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003;29(1):112–7.
McAlinden C, Khadka J, Pesudovs K. A comprehensive evaluation of the precision (repeatability and reproducibility) of the Oculus Pentacam HR. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(10):7731–7.
Kohnen T, Terzi E, Kasper T, Kohnen E-M, Bühren J. Correlation of infrared pupillometers and CCD-camera imaging from aberrometry and videokeratography for determining scotopic pupil size. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004;30(2):2116–23.
Wickremasinghe SS, Smith GT, Stevens JD. Comparison of dynamic digital pupillometry and static measurements of pupil size in determining scotopic pupil size before refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31(6):1171–6.
Brown SM, Bradley JC. Comparison of 2 monocular pupillometers and an autorefractor for measurement of the dark-adapted pupil diameter. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(4):660–4.
Cervino A, Hosking SL, Dunne MCM. Operator- induced errors in Hartmann-Shack wavefront sensing : Model eye study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007;33(1):115–21.
Ferrer-Blasco T, Esteve-Taboada JJ, Martínez-Albert N, Alfonso, José F, Montés-Micó R. Agreement of white-to-white measurements with the IOLMaster 700, Atlas 9000 and Sirius systems. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2018;15(6):453–9.
Md-Muziman-Syah MM, Mutalib HA, Sharanjeet- Kaur MS, Khairidzan-Khairidzan MK. A comparative study on the inter-session and inter-examiner reliability of corneal power measurement using various keratometry instruments. Int Med J Malaysia. 2016;15(1):69–74.
Salmon TO, West RW, Gasser W, Kenmore T. Measurement of refractive errors in young myopes using the COAS Shack-Hartmann. Optom Vis Sci. 2003;80(1):6–14.
Xu Z, Hua Y, Qiu W, Li G, Wu Q. Precision and agreement of higher order aberrations measured with ray tracing and Hartmann-Shack aberrometers. BMC Ophthalmol. 2018;18(1):1–11.
Md-Muziman-Syah MM, Mutalib HA, Sharanjeet- Kaur MS, Khairidzan MK. New modified equation of contact lens method in determining post myopic laser refractive surgery corneal power. Int Med J Malaysia. 2016;15(1):61–8.
Wilson MH, Edsell M, Imray C, Wright A. Changes in pupil dynamics at high altitude - an observational study using a handheld pupillometer. High Alt Med Biol. 2008;9(4):319–25.
Schallenberg M, Bangre V, Steuhl K-P, Kremmer S, Selbach JM. Comparison of the Colvard, Procyon, and Neuroptics pupillometers for measuring pupil diameter under low ambient illumination. J Refract Surg. 2010;26(2):134–43.
Altan C, Kaya V, Basarır B, Celik U, Azman E, Akar S, et al. Comparison of 3 pupillometers for determining scotopic pupil diameter. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2012;22(9):904–10.
McAlinden C, Khadka J, Pesudovs K. Statistical methods for conducting agreement (comparison of clinical tests) and precision (repeatability or reproducibility) studies in optometry and ophthalmology. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2011;31(4):330–8.
Urbaniak GC, Plous S. Research Randomizer (Version 4.0) [Internet]. [cited 2019 Sep 12]. Available from: https://www.randomizer.org/
McAlinden C, Khadka J, Pesudovs K. Precision (repeatability and reproducibility) studies and sample-size calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41(12):2598–604.
Md Muziman Syah MM, Nurul Adabiah M, Noorhazayti AH, Nazaryna M, Azuwan M, Noryanti M, et al. Comparison of surgically induced astigmatism (SIA) values using three Holladay incorporated method SIA calculators. J Phys Conf Ser. 2019;1366:1–6.
Md Mustafa MMS, Abdul Mutalib H, Ab. Halim N, Hilmi MR. Accuracy of contact lens method by spherical and aspheric rigid gas permeable lenses on corneal power determination in normal eyes. Sains Malaysiana. 2020;49(6):1431–7.
Wachler BSB, Krueger RR. Agreement and repeatability of pupillometry using videokeratography and infrared devices. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000;26(1):35–40.
Schmitz S, Krummenauer F, Henn S, Dick HB. Comparison of three different technologies for pupil diameter measurement. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2003;241(6):472–7.
Cheng ACK, Lam DSC. Comparison of the Colvard pupillometer and the Zywave for measuring scotopic pupil diameter. J Refract Surg. 2004;20(3):248–52.
Guillon M, Dumbleton K, Theodoratos P, Gobbe M, Wooley CB, Moody K. The effects of age, refractive status, and luminance on pupil size. Optom Vis Sci. 2016;93(9):1093–100.
Yuen LH, Chan WK, Koh J, Mehta JS, Tan DT. A 10-year prospective audit of LASIK outcomes for myopia in 37932 eyes at a single institution in Asia. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(6):1236–44.