Biomedical subjects

Alejandro Cervino

Publications and source records attributed to Alejandro Cervino.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2007

Operator-induced errors in Hartmann-Shack wavefront sensing: model eye study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of instrument realignment and angular misalignment during the clinical determination of wavefront aberrations by simulation in model eyes. SETTING: Aston Academy of Life Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom. METHODS: Six model eyes were examined with wavefront-aberration-supported cornea ablation (WASCA) (Carl Zeiss Meditec) in 4 sessions of 10 measurements each: sessions 1 and 2, consecutive repeated measures without realignment; session 3, realignment of the instrument between readings; session 4, measurements without realignment but with the model eye shifted 6 degrees angularly. Intersession repeatability and the effects of realignment and misalignment were obtained by comparing the measurements in the various sessions for coma, spherical aberration, and higher-order aberrations (HOAs). RESULTS: The mean differences between the 2 sessions without realignment of the instrument were 0.020 microm +/- 0.076 (SD) for Z(3)(-1)(P = .551), 0.009 +/- 0.139 microm for Z(3)(1)(P = .877), 0.004 +/- 0.037 microm for Z(4)(0) (P = .820), and 0.005 +/- 0.01 microm for HO root mean square (RMS) (P = .301). Differences between the nonrealigned and realigned instruments were -0.017 +/- 0.026 microm for Z(3)(-1)(P = .159), 0.009 +/- 0.028 microm for Z(3)(1) (P = .475), 0.007 +/- 0.014 microm for Z(4)(0)(P = .296), and 0.002 +/- 0.007 microm for HO RMS (P = 0.529; differences between centered and misaligned instruments were -0.355 +/- 0.149 microm for Z(3)(-1) (P = .002), 0.007 +/- 0.034 microm for Z(3)(1)(P = .620), -0.005 +/- 0.081 microm for Z(4)(0)(P = .885), and 0.012 +/- 0.020 microm for HO RMS (P = .195). Realignment increased the standard deviation by a factor of 3 compared with the first session without realignment. CONCLUSIONS: Repeatability of the WASCA was excellent in all situations tested. Realignment substantially increased the variance of the measurements. Angular misalignment can result in significant errors, particularly in the determination of coma. These findings are important when assessing highly aberrated eyes during follow-up or before surgery.

Calibration↗

PubMed2006

Wavefront analyzers induce instrument myopia.

PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy of three wavefront analyzers versus a validated binocular open-view autorefractor in determining refractive error in non-cycloplegic eyes. METHODS: Eighty eyes were examined using the SRW-5000 open-view infrared autorefractor and, in randomized sequence, three wavefront analyzers: 1) OPD-Scan (NIDEK, Gamagori, Japan), 2) WASCA (Zeiss/Meditec, Jena, Germany), and 3) Allegretto (WaveLight Laser Technologies AG, Erlangen, Germany). Subjects were healthy adults (19 men and 21 women; mean age: 20.8 +/- 2.5 years). Refractive errors ranged from +1.5 to -9.75 diopters (D) (mean: +1.83 +/- 2.74 D) with up to 1.75 D cylinder (mean: 0.58 +/- 0.53 D). Three readings were collected per instrument by one examiner without anticholinergic agents. Refraction values were decomposed into vector components for analysis, resulting in mean spherical equivalent refraction (M) and J0 and J45 being vectors of cylindrical power at 0 degrees and 45 degrees, respectively. RESULTS: Positive correlation was observed between wavefront analyzers and the SRW-5000 for spherical equivalent refraction (OPD-Scan, r=0.959, P<.001; WASCA, r=0.981, P<.001; Allegretto, r=0.942, P<.001). Mean differences and limits of agreement showed more negative spherical equivalent refraction with wavefront analyzers (OPD-Scan, 0.406 +/- 0.768 D [range: 0.235 to 0.580 D] [P<.001]; WASCA, 0.511 +/- 0.550 D [range: 0.390 to 0.634 D] [P<.001]; and Allegretto, 0.434 +/- 0.904 D [range: 0.233 to 0.635 D] [P<.001]). A second analysis eliminating outliers showed the same trend but lower differences: OPD-Scan (n=75), 0.24 +/- 0.41 D (range: 0.15 to 0.34 D) (P<.001); WASCA (n=78), 0.46 +/- 0.47 D (range: 0.36 to 0.57 D) (P<.001); and Allegretto (n=77), 0.30 +/- 0.62 D (range: 0.16 to 0.44 D) (P<.001). No statistically significant differences were noted for J0 and J45. CONCLUSIONS: Wavefront analyzer refraction resulted in 0.30 D more myopia compared to SRW-5000 refraction in eyes without cycloplegia. This is the result of the accommodation excess attributable to instrument myopia. For the relatively low degrees of astigmatism in this study (<2.0 D), good agreement was noted between wavefront analyzers and the SRW-5000.

Adult↗