Original Articles
Correlation of Aberrometry, Contrast Sensitivity, and Subjective Symptoms With Quality of Vision After LASIK
Journal of Refractive Surgery, 2009;25(7):559–568
Cite this articlePublished Online:June 10, 2009https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20090610-01Cited by:28
Abstract
Purpose:
To compare which parameter category (wavefront data, psychophysical data, or subjective symptoms) predicts best subjective quality of vision after LASIK.
Methods:
Twenty-eight eyes (15 patients) were included. Twenty-three eyes (12 patients) underwent uneventful LASIK; 5 eyes (3 patients) were symptomatic eyes treated with myopic LASIK elsewhere. Mean preoperative spherical equivalent refraction was −4.79±1.92 diopters (D) (range: −1.63 to −7.13 D); mean patient age was 36.6±7.4 years (range: 18 to 48 years). All examinations were performed 1 month postoperatively. The wavefront error was described with Zernike polynomials (6-mm pupil). Psychophysical tests included high-contrast visual acuity and contrast sensitivity with and without glare at 167 cd/m−2, 1.67 cd/m−2, and 0.167 cd/m−2 with best spectacle correction. Correspondingly, overall subjective quality of vision and frequency of visual symptoms (glare, halos, starbursts, ghosting, blur) were assessed for three lighting conditions (photopic, high-mesopic, and low-mesopic) using a questionnaire with a visual analog scale. For each parameter category and each lighting condition, a multiple stepwise backwards regression model with the overall quality of vision item value as dependent was applied.
Results:
Under all lighting conditions, subjective symptom scores predicted subjective quality of vision best (adjusted R2=0.83–0.92) with blur as the main predictor throughout all conditions. Psychophysical tests did not significantly predict postoperative subjective quality of vision. The adjusted R2 for the Zernike coefficients was highest for low-mesopic (0.56) and lowest for photopic conditions (0.31).
Conclusions:
Different parameter categories for the description of optical quality did not predict subjective quality of vision after LASIK equally. Subjective symptom scores had the highest predictability, whereas psychophysical tests with spectacle correction had no predictability. The latter probably do not reflect all dimensions of subjective quality of vision.
[J Refract Surg. 2009;25:559–568.]
- 1.. Measuring vision in refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001; 27:1897–1898. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 2.. Quality of vision. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004; 30:529–530. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 3.. Making sense out of wavefront sensing. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005; 139:335–343. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 4.. Quality of vision: a consensus building initiative for a new ophthalmologic concept. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2006; 16:851–860. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 5.. Beyond Snellen acuity: the assessment of visual function after refractive surgery. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001; 119:1371–1373. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 6.. Measuring visual acuity-mesopic or photopic conditions, and high or low contrast letters? J Refract Surg. 2004; 20:S508–S514. > LinkGoogle Scholar
- 7.. Functional vision and corneal changes after laser in situ keratomileusis determined by contrast sensitivity, glare testing, and corneal topography. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999; 25:663–669. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 8.. Contrast sensitivity evaluation after laser in situ keratomileusis. Ophthalmology. 2000; 107:1864–1867. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 9.. Quality of vision after laser in situ keratomileusis: influence of dioptric correction and pupil size on visual function. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003; 29:769–777. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 10.. Laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia and the contrast sensitivity function. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004; 30:1209–1218. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 11.. Measurement of contrast sensitivity and glare under mesopic and photopic conditions following wavefront-guided and conventional LASIK surgery. J Refract Surg. 2006; 22:647–655. > LinkGoogle Scholar
- 12.. Ocular higher-order aberrations and contrast sensitivity after conventional laser in situ keratomileusis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004; 45:3986–3990. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 13.. Objective measurement of wave aberrations of the human eye with the use of a Hartmann-Shack wave-front sensor. J Opt Soc Am A. 1994; 11:1949–1957. > CrossrefGoogle Scholar
- 14.. Wavefront technology: past, present and future. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2005; 28:75–92. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 15.. Average optical performance of the human eye as a function of age in a normal population. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999; 40:203–223. > MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 16.. Ocular optical aberrations after photorefractive keratectomy for myopia and myopic astigmatism. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000; 118:17–21. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 17.. 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 Opt Image Sci Vis. 2001; 18:1003–1015. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 18.. Higher-order wavefront aberrations induced by small ablation area and sub-clinical decentration in simulated corneal refractive surgery using a perturbed schematic eye model. Semin Ophthalmol. 2003; 18:41–47. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 19.. Wavefront-guided LASIK with the Zyoptix 3.1 system for the correction of myopia and compound myopic astigmatism with 1-year followup: clinical outcome and change in higher order aberrations. Ophthalmology. 2004; 111:2175–2185. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 20.. Influence of pupil and optical zone diameter on higher-order aberrations after wavefront-guided myopic LASIK. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005; 31:2272–2280. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 21.. A prospective randomized clinical trial of laser in situ keratomileusis with two different lasers. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005; 140:173–183. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 22.. Optical analysis of presbyLASIK treatment by a light propagation algorithm. J Refract Surg. 2007; 23:39–44. > LinkGoogle Scholar
- 23.. Functional outcome and satisfaction after photorefractive keratectomy. Part 1: development and validation of a survey questionnaire. Ophthalmology. 2000; 107:1783–1789. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 24.. Development of a questionnaire to assess subjective vision score in myopes seeking refractive surgery. J Refract Surg. 2004; 20:10–19. > LinkGoogle Scholar
- 25.. Visual, refractive, and subjective outcomes after photorefractive keratectomy for myopia of 6 to 10 diopters using the Nidek laser. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999; 25:936–942. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 26.. Objective and subjective evaluation of photic phenomena after monofocal and multifocal intraocular lens implantation. Ophthalmology. 1999; 106:1878–1886. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 27.. Photorefractive keratectomy versus laser in situ keratomileusis: comparison of optical side effects. Summit PRK-LASIK Study Group. Ophthalmology. 2000; 107:925–933. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 28.. Pupil size and quality of vision after LASIK. Ophthalmology. 2003; 110:1606–1614. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 29.. Functional outcomes and patient satisfaction after laser in situ keratomileusis for correction of myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005; 31:1943–1951. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 30.. Functional outcome and patient satisfaction after Artisan phakic intraocular lens implantation for the correction of myopia. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006; 142:31–39. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 31.. Visual experience and patient satisfaction with wavefront-guided laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006; 32:577–583. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 32.. Corneal aberrations and visual performance after radial keratotomy. J Refract Surg. 1998; 14:397–407. > LinkGoogle Scholar
- 33.. Corneal first surface optical aberrations and visual performance. J Refract Surg. 2000; 16:507–514. > LinkGoogle Scholar
- 34.. Contrast sensitivity function and ocular higher-order wavefront aberrations in normal human eyes. Ophthalmology. 2006; 113:1807–1812. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 35.. Penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus: the nexus between corneal wavefront aberrations and visual performance. J Refract Surg. 2006; 22:926–931. > LinkGoogle Scholar
- 36.. Preliminary results of photorefractive keratectomy in active-duty United States Navy personnel. Ophthalmology. 1996; 103:5–22. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 37.. Wavefront analysis in post-LASIK eyes and its correlation with visual symptoms, refraction, and topography. Ophthalmology. 2004; 111:447–453. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 38.. Wavefront aberrations and subjective quality of vision after wavefront-guided LASIK: first results. Ophthalmologe. 2007; 104:688–696. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 39.. Quality of vision after refractive surgery. In: , eds. Cataract and Refractive Surgery. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2004:303–314. > Google Scholar
- 40.. Cyclorotation of the eye in wavefront-guided LASIK using a static eyetracker with iris recognition. Ophthalmologe. 2007; 104:60–65. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 41.. Standards for reporting the optical aberrations of eyes. J Refract Surg. 2002; 18:S652–S660. > LinkGoogle Scholar
- 42.. The Freiburg Visual Acuity test—automatic measurement of visual acuity. Optom Vis Sci. 1996; 73:49–53. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 43.. Frankfurt-Freiburg Contrast and Acuity Test System (FF-CATS). A new test to determine contrast sensitivity under variable ambient and glare luminance levels. Ophthalmologe. 2005; 102:507–513. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 44.. Measuring contrast sensitivity under different lighting conditions: comparison of three tests. Optom Vis Sci. 2006; 83:290–298. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 45.. Designing a new letter chart for measuring contrast sensitivity. Clin Vis Sci. 1988; 2:187–199. > Google Scholar
- 46.. Assessing the reliability, discriminative ability, and validity of disability glare tests. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1993; 34:108–119. > MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 47.. Evaluation of the relationship between ablation diameter, pupil size, and visual function with vision-specific quality-of-life measures after laser in situ keratomileusis. Arch Ophthalmol. 2007; 125:1037–1042. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 48.. Measuring resolution in the contrast domain: the small letter contrast test. Optom Vis Sci. 1996; 73:398–403. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 49.. Importance of grating orientation when monitoring contrast sensitivity before and after refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008; 34:551–556. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 50.. The usefulness of Vistech and FACT contrast sensitivity charts for cataract and refractive surgery outcomes research. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004; 88:11–16. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
