OPD-Scan Ⅲ自动验光与非睫状肌麻痹下主觉验光的比较

比较OPD-Scan Ⅲ在明光和暗光下自动验光与非睫状肌麻痹下主觉验光的相关性和差异性。方法：系列病例研究。于2018年7月收集苏州大学附属理想眼科医院就诊的屈光不正患者102例 （204眼）,所有患者分别用OPD-Scan Ⅲ进行自动验光,综合验光仪进行主觉验光。对这2种方法测量结果的球镜度（S）、柱镜度（C）、等效球镜度（SE）、180°和90°轴位的Jackson交叉柱镜值（J0）, 135°和45°轴位的Jackson交叉柱镜值（J45）进行统计分析与比较。2种仪器所测得数据的差异性比较采用配对t检验,2种仪器所测得数据的相关性采用Pearson相关性分析。结果：OPD-Scan Ⅲ在明光下测得S、C、SE、J0、J45与主觉验光的结果均呈正相关（r=0.797、0.877、0.806、0.918、0.623,均 P<0.001）。OPD-Scan Ⅲ在明光下测得S、C、SE和J45较主觉验光的测量结果分别高-0.33、-0.08、 -0.37、0.04 D,差异均有统计学意义（t=4.232、3.058、4.741、-2.342,均P<0.05）,J0与主觉验光差异无统计学意义。OPD-Scan Ⅲ在暗光下测得S、C、SE、J0及J45与主觉验光的结果均呈正相关（r=0.877、 0.629、0.894、0.753、0.466,均P<0.001）。OPD-Scan Ⅲ在暗光下测得S、C和SE较主觉验光的测量结果分别高-0.57、-0.41、-0.77 D,差异有统计学意义（t=8.864、8.777、3.263,均P<0.001）,J0、J45 与主觉验光差异均无统计学意义。结论：OPD-Scan Ⅲ在明光和暗光下自动验光与非睫状肌麻痹下主觉验光度数的相关性及差异性均有统计学意义。但OPD-Scan Ⅲ在明光下自动验光的结果与主觉验光的差值较小,临床可接受。

Comparison of the Correlations and Differences between the Autorefraction Measured by OPD-Scan III and Non-Cycloplegic Subjective Refraction

To compare the correlations and differences between autorefraction measured by OPDScan III in light and dark modes with non-cycloplegic subjective refraction. Methods: This was a series of case studies. One hundred and two patients (204 eyes) with refractive errors were selected from the Ideal Ophthalmology Hospital affiliated to Soochow University during July 2018. All patients underwent autorefraction with OPD-Scan III and subjective refraction with a competent optometrist. Statistical analyses and comparisons were made on spherical (S), cylinder (C), spherical equivalent (SE), J0 (Jackson cross-cylindervalues at 180° and 90°) and J45 (Jackson cross-cylindervalues at 135° and 45°). Data were statistically analyzed using a t test, regression test and Pearson correlation. Results: The values of S, C, SE, J0 and J45 measured under OPD-Scan III light mode were positively correlated with those measured by subjective optometry (r=0.797, 0.877, 0.806, 0.918, 0.623, all P<0.001). All the measurements showed statistically significant differences. The values of S, C and SE measured under OPD-Scan III illumination were -0.33 D, -0.08 D, and -0.37 D were higher than those measured under subjective optometry, and the differences were statistically significant between the two measurements (t=4.232, 3.058, 4.741, all P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference for J0 but J45 showed a statistically significant difference (t=-2.342, P=0.021). The values of S, C, SE, J0, and J45 measured under OPD-Scan III dark light mode were positively correlated with the values measured by subjective optometry (r=0.877, 0.629, 0.894, 0.753, 0.466, all P<0.001). The values of S, C and SE measured by OPD-Scan III under dark light were higher than those measured by subjective optometry, -0.57 D, -0.41 D, and -0.77 D, respectively, and the differences were statistically significant between the two measurements (t=8.864, 8.777, 3.263, all P<0.001). There was no statistically significant difference for J0 and J45. Conclusions: The correlations and differences between the autorefractions measured by OPD-Scan III in light and dark mode with subjective refraction showed statistical significance. But the difference between autorefraction measured by OPDScan III in light mode and subjective optometry is small, which is acceptable in the clinic