Optimizing wavefront-guided corrections for highly aberrated eyes in the presence of registration uncertainty

Comparison of Ocular Wavefront Aberration Measurements Obtained Using Two Hartmann-Shack Wavefront Aberrometers

OBJECTIVES

To assess agreement between measurements of ocular wavefront aberrations obtained using the Pentacam AXL Wave (Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH) (Aberrometer A) and KR-1W (Topcon Corp) (Aberrometer B), both of which are based on the Hartmann-Shack principle.

METHODS

In this prospective case-control study, ocular wavefront aberrations measurements were obtained using both aberrometers in patients with keratoconus (KC) and control participants. Ocular wavefront aberrations were measured through the natural pupil without dilation using both devices in a dark room. For both aberrometers, accommodation was inhibited by automatically adding fogging. The individual Zernike coefficients from the second to fourth order were compared between the two aberrometers for a 4-mm pupil diameter.

RESULTS

Twenty-six KC and 29 control eyes were assessed. Statistically significant correlations ( P <0.05) were observed for all Zernike coefficients, except for Z 4-2 in the control group. Bland-Altman analysis indicated good agreement between aberrometers and no statistically significant differences in the control group. However, in the KC group, patterns of proportional error were observed in vertical coma Z 3-1 (r=0.338, P =0.008), trefoil Z 4-4 (r=0.701, P =0.003), secondary astigmatism Z 4-2 (r=0.348, P =0.025), and spherical aberrations Z 40 (r=0.407, P =0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

The Zernike coefficient values measured by the two aberrometers were well correlated in the control and KC groups. However, in eyes with KC, Aberrometer B tended to present greater values in several Zernike coefficients than Aberrometer A, suggesting that wavefront measurements obtained using the two aberrometers are not interchangeable in patients with KC.

Combining optical and neural components in physiological visual image quality metrics as functions of luminance and age

Visual image quality metrics combine comprehensive descriptions of ocular optics (from wavefront error) with a measure of the neural processing of the visual system (neural contrast sensitivity). To improve the ability of these metrics to track real-world changes in visual performance and to investigate the roles and interactions of those optical and neural components in foveal visual image quality as functions of age and target luminance, models of neural contrast sensitivity were constructed from the literature as functions of (1) retinal illuminance (Trolands, td), and (2) retinal illuminance and age. These models were then incorporated into calculation of the visual Strehl ratio (VSX). Best-corrected VSX values were determined at physiological pupil sizes over target luminances of 104 to 10-3 cd/m2 for 146 eyes spanning six decades of age. Optical and neural components of the metrics interact and contribute to visual image quality in three ways. At target luminances resulting in >900 td at physiological pupil size, neural processing is constant, and only aberrations (that change as pupil size changes with luminance) affect the metric. At low mesopic luminances below where pupil size asymptotes to maximum, optics are constant (maximum pupil), and only the neural component changes with luminance. Between these two levels, both optical and neural components of the metrics are affected by changes in target luminance. The model that accounted for both retinal illuminance and age allowed VSX, termed VSX(td,a), to best track visual acuity trends (measured at 160 and 200 cd/m2) as a function of age (20s through 70s) from the literature. Best-corrected VSX(td,a) decreased by 2.24 log units between maximum and minimum target luminances in the youngest eyes and by 2.58 log units in the oldest. The decrease due to age was more gradual at high target luminances (0.70 log units) and more pronounced as target luminance decreased (1.04 log units).

Alignment of a wavefront-guided scleral lens correction in the presence of a lens capsulotomy

PURPOSE

To demonstrate the necessity of aligning a wavefront-guided scleral lens (WGSL) optical correction to the eye's effective pupil, with misalignments leading to reduced performance.

CASE REPORT

A 34 year old subject with a history of failed LASIK in the left eye, leading to penetrating keratoplasty, extracapsular extraction of the crystalline lens and neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Nd:YAG) laser posterior capsulotomy, enrolled in a study examining WGSL performance. Habitual logMAR acuity OS (aided with a scleral lens) was +0.04. Residual higher order root mean square (HORMS) wavefront error (WFE) was 0.28 μm (Φ =4.75 mm, mean age-matched norm =0.17 μm), and objective over-refraction was -0.30 -0.54 × 008. When a WGSL (targeting aberrations up to the 5 th radial order) was manufactured with the wavefront-guided optics aligned to the center of the dilated pupil, logMAR acuity worsened to +0.15, residual HORMS WFE worsened to 0.44 μm (Φ =4.75 mm), and objective over-refraction increased to +1.19 -0.30 × 122. Slit lamp imagery revealed that the effective pupil was no longer defined by the iris of the eye, but rather the capsular opening created by the capsulotomy. When the WGSL was redesigned to align the wavefront-guided optics to the center of the capsular opening, logMAR acuity improved to -0.14, residual HORMS WFE reduced to 0.17 μm (Φ =4.75 mm) and objective over-refraction reduced to +0.20 -0.15 × 111.

CONCLUSION

WGSLs are an emerging option for patients with highly aberrated, ectatic and post-surgical corneas whose visual symptoms cannot be alleviated with conventional corrections. However, alignment of the optics of the WGSL to the underlying optics of the eye over the effective pupil is critical in achieving good optical and visual performance.

Comparison of Wavefront-guided and Best Conventional Scleral Lenses after Habituation in Eyes with Corneal Ectasia

SIGNIFICANCE

Visual performance with wavefront-guided (WFG) contact lenses has only been reported immediately after manufacture without time for habituation, and comparison has only been made with clinically unrefined predicate conventional lenses. We present comparisons of habitual corrections, best conventional scleral lenses, and WFG scleral lenses after habituation to all corrections.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare, in a crossover design, optical and visual performance of eyes with corneal ectasias wearing dispensed best conventional scleral lens corrections and dispensed individualized WFG scleral lens corrections.

METHODS

Ten subjects (20 eyes) participated in a randomized crossover study where best conventional scleral lenses and WFG scleral lenses (customized through the fifth radial order) were worn for 8 weeks each. These corrections, as well as each subject's habitual correction and normative data for normal eyes, were compared using (1) residual higher-order aberrations (HORMS), (2) visual acuity (VA), (3) letter contrast sensitivity (CS), and (4) visual image quality (logarithm of the visual Strehl ratio, or logVSX). Correlations were performed between Pentacam biometric measures and gains provided by WFG lenses.

RESULTS

Mean HORMS was reduced by 48% from habitual to conventional and 43% from conventional to WFG. Mean logMAR VA improved from habitual (+0.12) to conventional (-0.03) and further with WFG (-0.09); six eyes gained greater than one line with WFG over conventional. Area under the CS curve improved by 26% from habitual to conventional and 14% from conventional to WFG. The percentage of the eyes achieving normal levels were as follows: HORMS, 40% for conventional and 85% for WFG; VA, 50% for conventional and 85% for WFG; and CS, 60% for conventional and 90% for WFG. logVSX improved by 16% from habitual to conventional and 25% further with WFG. Reduction in aberrations with WFG lenses best correlated with posterior cornea radius of curvature.

CONCLUSIONS

Visual performance was superior to that reported with nonhabituated WFG lens wear. With WFG lenses, HORMS and logVSX significantly improved, allowing more eyes to reach normal levels of optical and visual performance compared with conventional lenses.

The Relationship Between High-Order Aberration and Anterior Ocular Biometry During Accommodation in Young Healthy Adults

Purpose

This study investigated the anterior ocular anatomic origin of high-order aberration (HOA) components using optical coherence tomography and a Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor.

Methods

A customized system was built to simultaneously capture images of ocular wavefront aberrations and anterior ocular biometry. Relaxed, 2-diopter (D) and 4-D accommodative states were repeatedly measured in 30 young subjects. Custom software was used to correct optical distortions and measure biometric parameters from the images.

Results

The anterior ocular biometry changed during 2-D accommodation, in which central lens thickness, ciliary muscle thicknesses at 1 mm posterior to the scleral spur (CMT1), and the maximum value of ciliary muscle thickness increased significantly, whereas anterior chamber depth, CMT3, radius of anterior lens surface curvature (RAL), and radius of posterior lens surface curvature (RPL) decreased significantly. The changes in the anterior ocular parameters during 4-D accommodation were similar to those for the 2-D accommodation. \begin{document}\newcommand{\bialpha}{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\newcommand{\bibeta}{\boldsymbol{\beta}}\newcommand{\bigamma}{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}\newcommand{\bidelta}{\boldsymbol{\delta}}\newcommand{\bivarepsilon}{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}\newcommand{\bizeta}{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}\newcommand{\bieta}{\boldsymbol{\eta}}\newcommand{\bitheta}{\boldsymbol{\theta}}\newcommand{\biiota}{\boldsymbol{\iota}}\newcommand{\bikappa}{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}\newcommand{\bilambda}{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\newcommand{\bimu}{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\newcommand{\binu}{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\newcommand{\bixi}{\boldsymbol{\xi}}\newcommand{\biomicron}{\boldsymbol{\micron}}\newcommand{\bipi}{\boldsymbol{\pi}}\newcommand{\birho}{\boldsymbol{\rho}}\newcommand{\bisigma}{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\newcommand{\bitau}{\boldsymbol{\tau}}\newcommand{\biupsilon}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}\newcommand{\biphi}{\boldsymbol{\phi}}\newcommand{\bichi}{\boldsymbol{\chi}}\newcommand{\bipsi}{\boldsymbol{\psi}}\newcommand{\biomega}{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\({\rm Z}_4^0\)\end{document} decreased significantly during 2-D accommodation, and \begin{document}\newcommand{\bialpha}{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\newcommand{\bibeta}{\boldsymbol{\beta}}\newcommand{\bigamma}{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}\newcommand{\bidelta}{\boldsymbol{\delta}}\newcommand{\bivarepsilon}{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}\newcommand{\bizeta}{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}\newcommand{\bieta}{\boldsymbol{\eta}}\newcommand{\bitheta}{\boldsymbol{\theta}}\newcommand{\biiota}{\boldsymbol{\iota}}\newcommand{\bikappa}{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}\newcommand{\bilambda}{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\newcommand{\bimu}{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\newcommand{\binu}{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\newcommand{\bixi}{\boldsymbol{\xi}}\newcommand{\biomicron}{\boldsymbol{\micron}}\newcommand{\bipi}{\boldsymbol{\pi}}\newcommand{\birho}{\boldsymbol{\rho}}\newcommand{\bisigma}{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\newcommand{\bitau}{\boldsymbol{\tau}}\newcommand{\biupsilon}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}\newcommand{\biphi}{\boldsymbol{\phi}}\newcommand{\bichi}{\boldsymbol{\chi}}\newcommand{\bipsi}{\boldsymbol{\psi}}\newcommand{\biomega}{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\({\rm{Z}}_3^{ - 1}\)\end{document}, \begin{document}\newcommand{\bialpha}{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\newcommand{\bibeta}{\boldsymbol{\beta}}\newcommand{\bigamma}{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}\newcommand{\bidelta}{\boldsymbol{\delta}}\newcommand{\bivarepsilon}{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}\newcommand{\bizeta}{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}\newcommand{\bieta}{\boldsymbol{\eta}}\newcommand{\bitheta}{\boldsymbol{\theta}}\newcommand{\biiota}{\boldsymbol{\iota}}\newcommand{\bikappa}{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}\newcommand{\bilambda}{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\newcommand{\bimu}{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\newcommand{\binu}{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\newcommand{\bixi}{\boldsymbol{\xi}}\newcommand{\biomicron}{\boldsymbol{\micron}}\newcommand{\bipi}{\boldsymbol{\pi}}\newcommand{\birho}{\boldsymbol{\rho}}\newcommand{\bisigma}{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\newcommand{\bitau}{\boldsymbol{\tau}}\newcommand{\biupsilon}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}\newcommand{\biphi}{\boldsymbol{\phi}}\newcommand{\bichi}{\boldsymbol{\chi}}\newcommand{\bipsi}{\boldsymbol{\psi}}\newcommand{\biomega}{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\({\rm{Z}}_3^1\)\end{document}, \begin{document}\newcommand{\bialpha}{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\newcommand{\bibeta}{\boldsymbol{\beta}}\newcommand{\bigamma}{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}\newcommand{\bidelta}{\boldsymbol{\delta}}\newcommand{\bivarepsilon}{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}\newcommand{\bizeta}{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}\newcommand{\bieta}{\boldsymbol{\eta}}\newcommand{\bitheta}{\boldsymbol{\theta}}\newcommand{\biiota}{\boldsymbol{\iota}}\newcommand{\bikappa}{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}\newcommand{\bilambda}{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\newcommand{\bimu}{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\newcommand{\binu}{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\newcommand{\bixi}{\boldsymbol{\xi}}\newcommand{\biomicron}{\boldsymbol{\micron}}\newcommand{\bipi}{\boldsymbol{\pi}}\newcommand{\birho}{\boldsymbol{\rho}}\newcommand{\bisigma}{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\newcommand{\bitau}{\boldsymbol{\tau}}\newcommand{\biupsilon}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}\newcommand{\biphi}{\boldsymbol{\phi}}\newcommand{\bichi}{\boldsymbol{\chi}}\newcommand{\bipsi}{\boldsymbol{\psi}}\newcommand{\biomega}{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\({\rm{Z}}_4^0\)\end{document}, and \begin{document}\newcommand{\bialpha}{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\newcommand{\bibeta}{\boldsymbol{\beta}}\newcommand{\bigamma}{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}\newcommand{\bidelta}{\boldsymbol{\delta}}\newcommand{\bivarepsilon}{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}\newcommand{\bizeta}{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}\newcommand{\bieta}{\boldsymbol{\eta}}\newcommand{\bitheta}{\boldsymbol{\theta}}\newcommand{\biiota}{\boldsymbol{\iota}}\newcommand{\bikappa}{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}\newcommand{\bilambda}{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\newcommand{\bimu}{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\newcommand{\binu}{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\newcommand{\bixi}{\boldsymbol{\xi}}\newcommand{\biomicron}{\boldsymbol{\micron}}\newcommand{\bipi}{\boldsymbol{\pi}}\newcommand{\birho}{\boldsymbol{\rho}}\newcommand{\bisigma}{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\newcommand{\bitau}{\boldsymbol{\tau}}\newcommand{\biupsilon}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}\newcommand{\biphi}{\boldsymbol{\phi}}\newcommand{\bichi}{\boldsymbol{\chi}}\newcommand{\bipsi}{\boldsymbol{\psi}}\newcommand{\biomega}{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\({\rm{Z}}_6^0\)\end{document} shifted to negative values during 4-D accommodation. The change in \begin{document}\newcommand{\bialpha}{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\newcommand{\bibeta}{\boldsymbol{\beta}}\newcommand{\bigamma}{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}\newcommand{\bidelta}{\boldsymbol{\delta}}\newcommand{\bivarepsilon}{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}\newcommand{\bizeta}{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}\newcommand{\bieta}{\boldsymbol{\eta}}\newcommand{\bitheta}{\boldsymbol{\theta}}\newcommand{\biiota}{\boldsymbol{\iota}}\newcommand{\bikappa}{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}\newcommand{\bilambda}{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\newcommand{\bimu}{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\newcommand{\binu}{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\newcommand{\bixi}{\boldsymbol{\xi}}\newcommand{\biomicron}{\boldsymbol{\micron}}\newcommand{\bipi}{\boldsymbol{\pi}}\newcommand{\birho}{\boldsymbol{\rho}}\newcommand{\bisigma}{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\newcommand{\bitau}{\boldsymbol{\tau}}\newcommand{\biupsilon}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}\newcommand{\biphi}{\boldsymbol{\phi}}\newcommand{\bichi}{\boldsymbol{\chi}}\newcommand{\bipsi}{\boldsymbol{\psi}}\newcommand{\biomega}{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\({\rm{Z}}_4^0\)\end{document} negatively correlated with those in CMT1, and the negative change in \begin{document}\newcommand{\bialpha}{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\newcommand{\bibeta}{\boldsymbol{\beta}}\newcommand{\bigamma}{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}\newcommand{\bidelta}{\boldsymbol{\delta}}\newcommand{\bivarepsilon}{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}\newcommand{\bizeta}{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}\newcommand{\bieta}{\boldsymbol{\eta}}\newcommand{\bitheta}{\boldsymbol{\theta}}\newcommand{\biiota}{\boldsymbol{\iota}}\newcommand{\bikappa}{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}\newcommand{\bilambda}{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\newcommand{\bimu}{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\newcommand{\binu}{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\newcommand{\bixi}{\boldsymbol{\xi}}\newcommand{\biomicron}{\boldsymbol{\micron}}\newcommand{\bipi}{\boldsymbol{\pi}}\newcommand{\birho}{\boldsymbol{\rho}}\newcommand{\bisigma}{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\newcommand{\bitau}{\boldsymbol{\tau}}\newcommand{\biupsilon}{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}\newcommand{\biphi}{\boldsymbol{\phi}}\newcommand{\bichi}{\boldsymbol{\chi}}\newcommand{\bipsi}{\boldsymbol{\psi}}\newcommand{\biomega}{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\({\rm{Z}}_3^1\)\end{document} correlated with changes in RAL and CMT1.

Conclusions

HOA components altered during step-controlled accommodative stimuli. Ciliary muscle first contracted during stepwise accommodation, which may directly contribute to the reduction of spherical aberration (SA). The lens morphology was then altered, and the change in anterior lens surface curvature was related to the variation of coma.

Scleral lens for keratoconus: technology update

Scleral lenses are large diameter lenses which rest over the sclera, unlike the conventional contact lenses which rest on the cornea. These lenses are fitted to not touch the cornea and there is a space created between the cornea and the lens. These lenses are inserted in the eyes after filling with sterile isotonic fluid. Generally, scleral contact lenses are used for high irregular astigmatism as seen in various corneal ectatic diseases such as keratoconus, pellucid marginal degeneration, or/and as liquid bandage in ocular surface disorders. In this article, we review the new developments, that have taken place over the years, in the field of scleral contact lenses as regard to new designs, materials, manufacturing technologies, and fitting strategies particularly for keratoconus.

Registration tolerance of a custom correction to maintain visual acuity

PURPOSE

To present a predictive model of the registration tolerance for wavefront-guided correction to maintain acuity within fixed limits and demonstrate the potential utility using two typical keratoconic eyes.

METHODS

Change in log visual Strehl was plotted as a function of translation error for a series of rotations of a wavefront-guided correction. Contour lines were added at Δlog visual Strehl levels predicted to induce one- and two-line losses of logMAR visual acuity. The model was validated by regressing measured acuity loss from subjects viewing acuity charts that were degraded by the residual wavefront error resulting from the movement of wavefront-guided correction against the model's predicted acuity.

RESULTS

The model's predicted change in acuity can be substituted for measured change in acuity (R² = 0.91) within measurement error (±0.1 logMAR). Translation and/or rotation of a wavefront-guided correction induced asymmetric optical tolerance to movement. Induced errors depended on the wavefront error being corrected, the wavefront-guided correction design, and the amount of registration error.

CONCLUSIONS

Change in log visual Strehl can be used to determine the registration tolerance necessary to keep the variation in acuity within user-defined limits. This tolerance is unique for each wavefront error and wavefront-guided correction design.

Change in visual acuity is well correlated with change in image-quality metrics for both normal and keratoconic wavefront errors

We determined the degree to which change in visual acuity (VA) correlates with change in optical quality using image-quality (IQ) metrics for both normal and keratoconic wavefront errors (WFEs). VA was recorded for five normal subjects reading simulated, logMAR acuity charts generated from the scaled WFEs of 15 normal and seven keratoconic eyes. We examined the correlations over a large range of acuity loss (up to 11 lines) and a smaller, more clinically relevant range (up to four lines). Nine IQ metrics were well correlated for both ranges. Over the smaller range of primary interest, eight were also accurate and precise in estimating the variations in logMAR acuity in both normal and keratoconic WFEs. The accuracy for these eight best metrics in estimating the mean change in logMAR acuity ranged between ±0.0065 to ±0.017 logMAR (all less than one letter), and the precision ranged between ±0.10 to ±0.14 logMAR (all less than seven letters).