Measurement of contrast sensitivity and glare under mesopic and photopic conditions following wavefront-guided and conventional LASIK surgery

Hyung Keun Lee, Chul Myung Choe, Kyoung Tak Ma, Eung Kweon Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

32 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare contrast and glare vision in a prospective study of eyes treated using conventional and wavefront-guided LASIK surgery. The reproducibility of a glaremeter device used to quantitatively measure glare and halo was also determined. METHODS: Ninety-two eyes of 46 patients underwent conventional LASIK surgery and 104 eyes of 52 patients underwent wavefront-guided LASIK surgery. Visual acuity, glare disability measured using a glaremeter, and contrast sensitivity assessed using a Pelli-Robson chart were measured monthly for 6 months postoperatively. Glaremeter testing was performed under both mesopic (5.4±0.4 cd/m2) and photopic (78.3±4.4 cd/m2) conditions. To evaluate the reproducibility of the glaremeter, 36 eyes of 18 nonoperated myopic patients were tested. RESULTS: The coefficient of variation and the reliability coefficient for the glare test were 13.6% and 95.2%, respectively. The glaremeter showed that glare disability under mesopic conditions differed between conventional and wavefront-guided LASIK eyes over 6-month follow-up (907.5±491.5 vs 986.1±448.0 pixels preoperatively and 1717.1±521.2 vs 1407.8±411.3 pixels at 6 months, P<.0001). At 6 months, contrast sensitivity log values were 1.62±0.31 and 1.78±0.34 for conventional and wavefront-guided LASIK eyes, respectively (P=.010). The visual complaint score was lower in the wavefront-guided LASIK group (P=.0116). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to conventional ablation, wavefront-guided ablation provided superior outcomes in terms of postoperative glare under mesopic conditions, subjective complaints, and contrast sensitivity. In addition, it appears the glaremeter can be used for clinical quantitative evaluation of glare and halo.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)647-655
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Refractive Surgery
Volume22
Issue number7
Publication statusPublished - 2006 Sep 1

Fingerprint

Glare
Laser In Situ Keratomileusis
Contrast Sensitivity
Visual Acuity
Prospective Studies
Equipment and Supplies

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

@article{dd0b48505d054fb0b14f18792c4d51f4,
title = "Measurement of contrast sensitivity and glare under mesopic and photopic conditions following wavefront-guided and conventional LASIK surgery",
abstract = "PURPOSE: To compare contrast and glare vision in a prospective study of eyes treated using conventional and wavefront-guided LASIK surgery. The reproducibility of a glaremeter device used to quantitatively measure glare and halo was also determined. METHODS: Ninety-two eyes of 46 patients underwent conventional LASIK surgery and 104 eyes of 52 patients underwent wavefront-guided LASIK surgery. Visual acuity, glare disability measured using a glaremeter, and contrast sensitivity assessed using a Pelli-Robson chart were measured monthly for 6 months postoperatively. Glaremeter testing was performed under both mesopic (5.4±0.4 cd/m2) and photopic (78.3±4.4 cd/m2) conditions. To evaluate the reproducibility of the glaremeter, 36 eyes of 18 nonoperated myopic patients were tested. RESULTS: The coefficient of variation and the reliability coefficient for the glare test were 13.6{\%} and 95.2{\%}, respectively. The glaremeter showed that glare disability under mesopic conditions differed between conventional and wavefront-guided LASIK eyes over 6-month follow-up (907.5±491.5 vs 986.1±448.0 pixels preoperatively and 1717.1±521.2 vs 1407.8±411.3 pixels at 6 months, P<.0001). At 6 months, contrast sensitivity log values were 1.62±0.31 and 1.78±0.34 for conventional and wavefront-guided LASIK eyes, respectively (P=.010). The visual complaint score was lower in the wavefront-guided LASIK group (P=.0116). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to conventional ablation, wavefront-guided ablation provided superior outcomes in terms of postoperative glare under mesopic conditions, subjective complaints, and contrast sensitivity. In addition, it appears the glaremeter can be used for clinical quantitative evaluation of glare and halo.",
author = "Lee, {Hyung Keun} and Choe, {Chul Myung} and Ma, {Kyoung Tak} and Kim, {Eung Kweon}",
year = "2006",
month = "9",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "647--655",
journal = "Journal of Refractive Surgery",
issn = "1081-597X",
publisher = "Slack Incorporated",
number = "7",

}

Measurement of contrast sensitivity and glare under mesopic and photopic conditions following wavefront-guided and conventional LASIK surgery. / Lee, Hyung Keun; Choe, Chul Myung; Ma, Kyoung Tak; Kim, Eung Kweon.

In: Journal of Refractive Surgery, Vol. 22, No. 7, 01.09.2006, p. 647-655.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Measurement of contrast sensitivity and glare under mesopic and photopic conditions following wavefront-guided and conventional LASIK surgery

AU - Lee, Hyung Keun

AU - Choe, Chul Myung

AU - Ma, Kyoung Tak

AU - Kim, Eung Kweon

PY - 2006/9/1

Y1 - 2006/9/1

N2 - PURPOSE: To compare contrast and glare vision in a prospective study of eyes treated using conventional and wavefront-guided LASIK surgery. The reproducibility of a glaremeter device used to quantitatively measure glare and halo was also determined. METHODS: Ninety-two eyes of 46 patients underwent conventional LASIK surgery and 104 eyes of 52 patients underwent wavefront-guided LASIK surgery. Visual acuity, glare disability measured using a glaremeter, and contrast sensitivity assessed using a Pelli-Robson chart were measured monthly for 6 months postoperatively. Glaremeter testing was performed under both mesopic (5.4±0.4 cd/m2) and photopic (78.3±4.4 cd/m2) conditions. To evaluate the reproducibility of the glaremeter, 36 eyes of 18 nonoperated myopic patients were tested. RESULTS: The coefficient of variation and the reliability coefficient for the glare test were 13.6% and 95.2%, respectively. The glaremeter showed that glare disability under mesopic conditions differed between conventional and wavefront-guided LASIK eyes over 6-month follow-up (907.5±491.5 vs 986.1±448.0 pixels preoperatively and 1717.1±521.2 vs 1407.8±411.3 pixels at 6 months, P<.0001). At 6 months, contrast sensitivity log values were 1.62±0.31 and 1.78±0.34 for conventional and wavefront-guided LASIK eyes, respectively (P=.010). The visual complaint score was lower in the wavefront-guided LASIK group (P=.0116). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to conventional ablation, wavefront-guided ablation provided superior outcomes in terms of postoperative glare under mesopic conditions, subjective complaints, and contrast sensitivity. In addition, it appears the glaremeter can be used for clinical quantitative evaluation of glare and halo.

AB - PURPOSE: To compare contrast and glare vision in a prospective study of eyes treated using conventional and wavefront-guided LASIK surgery. The reproducibility of a glaremeter device used to quantitatively measure glare and halo was also determined. METHODS: Ninety-two eyes of 46 patients underwent conventional LASIK surgery and 104 eyes of 52 patients underwent wavefront-guided LASIK surgery. Visual acuity, glare disability measured using a glaremeter, and contrast sensitivity assessed using a Pelli-Robson chart were measured monthly for 6 months postoperatively. Glaremeter testing was performed under both mesopic (5.4±0.4 cd/m2) and photopic (78.3±4.4 cd/m2) conditions. To evaluate the reproducibility of the glaremeter, 36 eyes of 18 nonoperated myopic patients were tested. RESULTS: The coefficient of variation and the reliability coefficient for the glare test were 13.6% and 95.2%, respectively. The glaremeter showed that glare disability under mesopic conditions differed between conventional and wavefront-guided LASIK eyes over 6-month follow-up (907.5±491.5 vs 986.1±448.0 pixels preoperatively and 1717.1±521.2 vs 1407.8±411.3 pixels at 6 months, P<.0001). At 6 months, contrast sensitivity log values were 1.62±0.31 and 1.78±0.34 for conventional and wavefront-guided LASIK eyes, respectively (P=.010). The visual complaint score was lower in the wavefront-guided LASIK group (P=.0116). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to conventional ablation, wavefront-guided ablation provided superior outcomes in terms of postoperative glare under mesopic conditions, subjective complaints, and contrast sensitivity. In addition, it appears the glaremeter can be used for clinical quantitative evaluation of glare and halo.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33748629902&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33748629902&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 16995546

AN - SCOPUS:33748629902

VL - 22

SP - 647

EP - 655

JO - Journal of Refractive Surgery

JF - Journal of Refractive Surgery

SN - 1081-597X

IS - 7

ER -