gms | German Medical Science

102. Jahrestagung der DOG

Deutsche Ophthalmologische Gesellschaft e. V.

23. bis 26.09.2004, Berlin

Comparison of infrared pupillometers and CCD-camera imaging from aberrometry and videokeratography for determining mesopic pupil size

Meeting Abstract

  • corresponding author E. Terzi - Department of Ophthalmology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main
  • T. Kasper - Department of Ophthalmology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main
  • J. Bühren - Department of Ophthalmology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main
  • E.-M. Kohnen - Department of Ophthalmology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main
  • T. Kohnen - Department of Ophthalmology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main

Evidenzbasierte Medizin - Anspruch und Wirklichkeit. 102. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft. Berlin, 23.-26.09.2004. Düsseldorf, Köln: German Medical Science; 2004. Doc04dogP 054

The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.egms.de/en/meetings/dog2004/04dog545.shtml

Published: September 22, 2004

© 2004 Terzi et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.en). You are free: to Share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work, provided the original author and source are credited.


Outline

Text

Objective

Measurement of mesopic pupil diameter is part of the preoperative evaluation of refractive patients, and it is taken into consideration, when a refractive procedure is planned. New aberrometry and topography devices provide pupil size measurements. In this study, such devices were compared to infrared pupillometers.

Methods

Pupil diameter was measured in 100 eyes of 51 patients after 2 minutes of dark adaptation using the following devices: Procyon (digital infrared pupillometer), Colvard (handheld infrared pupillometer), Zywave (fixating target switched off and on) and Wasca (aberrometer), and Orbscan II (corneal topographer). Measurements taken with the Procyon pupillometer were considered as reference values. Statistical evaluation was performed using the Bland-Altmann method for comparison of measurement techniques.

Results

Mean pupil size (mm) was 6.10 ± 0.86 with Procyon, 5.68 ± 1.07 with Colvard, 5.91 ± 1.01 with Zywave with the fixating target turned off, 5.09 ± 1.14 with Zywave with the fixating target turned on, 5.59 ± 0.99 with Wasca and 3.75 ± 0.67 with Orbscan. The limits of agreement were smallest for measurements between Procyon and Colvard, and largest for measurements between Procyon and Orbscan. The sign test revealed statistically significant differences for all devices in comparison to the Procyon pupillometer (in all cases P < 0.001), except for the Zywave aberrometer with the fixating target turned off (P = 0.13).

Conclusions

The Zywave wavefront sensor with the fixating target turned off provided measurements of scotopic pupil diameter that were closest to the reference values (Procyon). All other devices showed statistically significant differences.