Evidence Hub

Ultra-High Resolution Optical Aberrometry in Patients with Keratoconus: A Cross-Sectional Study

G. Velarde-Rodríguez, C. Belda-Para, M. Velasco-Ocaña, J. Trujillo-Sevilla, J. Rodríguez-Martin, I. Jiménez‐Alfaro, J. Rodríguez-Ramos, N. Alejandre-Alba

Ophthalmology and Therapy, 2023

27 participants · 6 citations

Abstract

Introduction This study performs optical aberration assessment in patients using a novel ultra-high-resolution device. The objective of this study is to analyze optical aberrations, especially the very high order wavefront (more than 10th order of Zernike coefficients), and compare between keratoconus and healthy patients. Methods In this cross-sectional study, we analyzed 43 eyes from 25 healthy patients and 43 eyes from 27 patients with keratoconus using corneal tomography and a very high-resolution (8.55 µm) aberrometer prototype (T-eyede) outfitted with a sensor originally developed for use in the field of astrophysics. Corneal aberration values were assessed using an optical model built with Zemax optical software, while ocular aberrations were assessed using T-eyede. In addition, image-processing analysis was performed of the wavefront phase, creating a high-pass filter map. Results We found lower values for ocular aberrations than corneal aberrations in both groups ( p < 0.001). Specifically, we found a reduction in primary astigmatism (0.145 µm) and primary coma (0.017 µm). Also, the keratoconus group showed significantly higher wavefront aberration values compared with controls ( p < 0.001). An analysis of the high-pass filter map revealed 2 contrasting results: one smooth or clear, while the other presented a banding pattern. Almost all in the control group (95%) showed the first pattern, while 77% of the keratoconus group showed a banding pattern on the filtered…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 27 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free