Korean J Ophthalmol.  2007 Jun;21(2):79-84. 10.3341/kjo.2007.21.2.79.

Comparison of Higher-order Aberrations between Eyes with Natural Supervision and Highly Myopic Eyes in Koreans

• Kim M
• Lee YG
• Seo KR
• Kim EK
• Lee HK

• KMID: 1101908
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2007.21.2.79

Abstract

PURPOSE: To describe the characteristics and investigate the differences of higher-order aberrations (HOAs) between the eyes with a natural, uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/12 and eyes with highly myopic eyes in Korean adults. METHODS: Thirty-one eyes of 20 subjects with UCVA of 20/12 (Group 1) and 54 eyes of 36 myopic patients with greater than -6 diopters (Group 2) were analyzed for type and magnitude of HOAs across a 6.0 mm pupil. HOAs were measured by Wavescan (VISX, Santa Clara, CA, USA) in natural scotopic conditions and were presented as root-mean-square (RMS: micrometer) in Belle aberration maps. RESULTS: The mean spherical equivalent (SE) of manifest refraction was -0.15+/-0.25 D (range: +0.37 to -0.50 D) in Group 1 and -7.25+/-0.78 D (range: -6.00 to -9.25 D) in Group 2. The total root-mean-square (RMS) values of HOAs for Group 1 and Group 2 were 0.28+/-0.09 micrometer and 0.27+/-0.087 micrometer, respectively (P>0.05). The mean values of coma, trefoil, and spherical aberration were 0.14+/-0.091 micrometer, 0.14+/-0.089 micrometer, 0.091+/-0.059 micrometer in Group 1 and 0.16+/-0.077 micrometer, 0.14+/-0.073 micrometer, 0.082+/-0.059 micrometer in Group 2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study helped establish ocular aberration standards for those with natural supervision and those with highly myopic eyes among Koreans. Individuals with natural supervision had significant amounts of HOAs, and there was no significant difference in the amount of HOAs between the two groups. The index of higher-order aberrations may not be a perfect predictor of the amount of refractive error.

Keyword

Higher-order aberrations; Supervision; High myopia

MeSH Terms

Adult
Cornea/*physiopathology
Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological
Female
Humans
Korea/epidemiology
Male
*Myopia/diagnosis/epidemiology/physiopathology
Prevalence
*Refraction, Ocular
Severity of Illness Index
Surface Properties
Visual Acuity

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Comparison of total HOAs* and individual higher-order aberrations of each group. *HOAs=higher-order aberrations, SA=spherical aberration.

Reference

1. Maeda N. Wavefront technology in ophthalmology. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2001. 12:294–299.

2. We RH, Penney CM, Thompson KP. Measurement of ocular wavefront distortion with a spatially resolved refractometer. Appl Optics. 1992. 31:3678–3686.

3. Liang J, Grimm B, Goelz S, Bille JF. Objective measurement of wave aberrations of the human eye with the use of a Hartmann-Shack wave-front sensor. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 1994. 11:1949–1957.

4. Liang J, Williams DR, Miller DT. Supernormal vision and high-resolution retinal imaging through adaptive optics. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 1997. 14:2884–2892.

5. Kohnen T, Buhren J, Kuhne C, Mirshahi A. Wavefront-guided LASIK with the Zyoptix 3.1 system for the correction of myopia and compound myopic astigmatism with 1-year follow-up: clinical outcome and change in higher order aberrations. Ophthalmology. 2004. 111:2175–2185.

6. Hammer T, Duncker GI, Giessler S. Results of wavefront-guided LASIK. Ophthalmologe. 2004. 101:824–829.

7. Seiler T, Dastjerdi MH. Customized corneal ablation. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2002. 13:256–260.

8. Applegate RA, Marsack JD, Ramos R, Sarver EJ. Interaction between aberrations to improve or reduce visual performance. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003. 29:1487–1495.

9. Cheng X, Bradley A, Hong X, Thibos LN. Relationship between refractive error and monochromatic aberrations of the eye. Optom Vis Sci. 2003. 80:43–49.

10. Thibos LN, Hong X. Clinical applications of the Shack-Hartmann aberrometer. Optom Vis Sci. 1999. 76:817–825.

11. Molebny VV, Panagopoulou SI, Molebny SV. Principles of ray tracing aberrometry. J Refract Surg. 2000. 16:S572–S575.

12. Howland HC. The history and methods of ophthalmic wavefront sensing. J Refract Surg. 2000. 16:S552–S553.

13. Thibos LN. Principles of Hartmann-Shack aberrometry. J Refract Surg. 2000. 16:S563–S565.

14. Applegate RA, Hilmantel G, Howland HC. Corneal first surface optical aberrations and visual performance. J Refract Surg. 2000. 16:507–514.

15. Levy Y, Segal O, Avni I, Zadok D. Ocular Higher-order Aberrations in Eyes With Supernormal Vision. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005. 139:225–228.

16. Netto MV, Ambrosio R Jr, Shen TT, Wilson SE. Wavefront analysis in normal refractive surgery candidates. J Refract Surg. 2005. 21:332–338.

17. Mintsioulis G, Munger R, Al-Muammar A. Krachmer JH, Mannis MJ, Holland EJ, editors. Wavefront Technology. Cornea. 2004. v. 2:2nd ed. Philadelphia: Mosby Inc;chap. 168.

18. Wilson SE. Wavefront analysis: are we missing something? Am J Ophthalmol. 2003. 136:340–342.

19. Wang Y, Zhao K, Jin Y, et al. Changes of higher order aberration with various pupil sizes in the myopic eye. J Refract Surg. 2003. 19:S270–S274.

20. Porter J, Guirao A, Cox IG, Williams DR. Monochromatic aberrations of the human eye in a large population. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 2001. 18:1793–1803.

21. Wang L, Koch DD. Ocular higher-order aberrations in individuals screened for refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003. 29:1896–1903.

22. Oshika T, Klyce SD, Applegate RA, Howland HC. Changes in corneal wavefront aberrations with aging. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999. 40:1351–1355.

23. Marsack JD, Thibos LN, Applegate RA. Metrics of optical quality derived from wave aberrations predict visual performance. J Vis. 2004. 4:322–328.