首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     

波前像差仪、电脑验光与主觉验光测量屈光度的矢量比较
引用本文:肖信,刘伟民,黄建忠,王英,赵武校. 波前像差仪、电脑验光与主觉验光测量屈光度的矢量比较[J]. 实用医学杂志, 2012, 28(2): 209-212. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-5725.2012.2.016
作者姓名:肖信  刘伟民  黄建忠  王英  赵武校
作者单位:广西壮族自治区人民医院视光科,南宁市,530021
基金项目:广西卫生厅自筹经费科研课题资助(编号:Z2006164)
摘    要:目的:运用矢量分析法比较波前像差仪、电脑验光仪及主觉验光测量屈光度的差异方法:随机选取广西视光中心就诊的近视患者89例.运用电脑验光仪、Wavescan波前像差仪和主觉验光测定球镜、柱镜及轴向,选取右眼结果经傅里叶变换成矢量形式,采用随机区组设计资料方差分析对结果进行分析.结果:电脑验光仪、波前像差仪与主觉验光测得的M值差异源于三种验光方法间的差异(F=34.036,P<0.001)和不同患者等效球镜值之间的差异(F=46.412,P<0.001),电脑验光仪测得的M值最负,波前像差仪次之,主觉验光最正.三种验光方法测得的J0和J45值比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05).电脑验光仪、波前像差仪与主觉验光测得的P值差异源于三种验光方法问的差异(F=34.418,P<0.001)和不同患者等效球镜值之间的差异(F=46.557,P<0.001),电脑验光仪测得的P值最大,波前像差仪次之,主觉验光最小.结论:电脑验光仪、波前像差仪与主觉验光测得的等效球镜和矢量值大小有差异,但测得的散光无差异.

关 键 词:屈光    电脑验光仪  波前像差仪  主觉验光  矢量  比较

Comparison of refractive vector determined by subjective refraction, auto-refractor, and wavefront analyzer
XIAO Xin,LIU Wei-min,HUANG Jian-zhong,WANG Ying,ZHAO Wu-xiao. Comparison of refractive vector determined by subjective refraction, auto-refractor, and wavefront analyzer[J]. The Journal of Practical Medicine, 2012, 28(2): 209-212. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-5725.2012.2.016
Authors:XIAO Xin  LIU Wei-min  HUANG Jian-zhong  WANG Ying  ZHAO Wu-xiao
Affiliation:. Department of Visual Science and Optometry Center, People′s Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning 530021, China
Abstract:Objective To compare the refractive vector obtained by wavefront analyzer, auto-refractor, and subjective refraction. Methods The refraction of 89 patients, who were selected randomly from visual science and optometry center of Guangxi, were determined by auto-refractor, wavefront analyzer, and subjective refraction, the right eye′s results were transformed to vector form according Fourier formula and were analyzed by the Two-Way ANOVA. Results The differences of M value among the auto-refractor, wavefront analyzer, and subjective refraction were attributed to the different optometry methods (F=34.036, P<0.001) and the different spherical equivalent (SE) of diverse patients (F=46.412, P<0.001). The M value of auto-refraction was the most negative, the wavefront analyzer take the second place, the subjective refraction was the most positive. There were no significant differences in J0 and J45 value among these three optometry (P>0.05). The differences of P value among the auto-refractor, wavefront analyzer, and subjective refraction were attributed to the different optometry methods (F=34.418, P<0.001) and the different SE of diverse patients (F=46.557, P<0.001). The P values of auto-refraction, wavefront analyzer, and subjective refraction were in decreased order. Conclusions Although there were differences in M and P value determined by auto-refractor, wavefront analyzer, and subjective refraction, there was no statistical difference in astigmatism among the three methods.
Keywords:Refraction  Ocular  Auto-refraction  Wavefront analyzer  Subjective refraction  Vector  Comparison
本文献已被 CNKI 万方数据 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号