ABSTRACT: To evaluate the differences of wavefront aberrations under cycloplegic, scotopic and photopic conditions.
A total of 174 eyes of 105 patients were measured using the wavefront sensor (WaveScan® 3.62) under different pupil conditions: cycloplegic 8.58 ± 0.54 mm (6.4 mm - 9.5 mm), scotopic 7.53 ± 0.69 mm (5.7 mm - 9.1 mm) and photopic 6.08 ± 1.14 mm (4.1 mm - 8.8 mm). The pupil diameter, standard Zernike coefficients, root mean square of higher-order aberrations and dominant aberrations were compared between cycloplegic and scotopic conditions, and between scotopic and photopic conditions.
The pupil diameter was 7.53 ± 0.69 mm under the scotopic condition, which reached the requirement of about 6.5 mm optical zone design in the wavefront-guided surgery and prevented measurement error due to the pupil centroid shift caused by mydriatics. Pharmacological pupil dilation induced increase of standard Zernike coefficients Z(3)(-3), Z(4)(0) and Z(5)(-5). The higher-order aberrations, third-order aberration, fourth-order aberration, fifth-order aberration, sixth-order aberration, and spherical aberration increased statistically significantly, compared to the scotopic condition (P<0.010). When the scotopic condition shifted to the photopic condition, the standard Zernike coefficients Z(4)(0), Z(4)(2), Z(6)(-4), Z(6)(-2), Z(6)(2) decreased and all the higher-order aberrations decreased statistically significantly (P<0.010), demonstrating that accommodative miosis can significantly improve vision under the photopic condition. Under the three conditions, the vertical coma aberration appears the most frequently within the dominant aberrations without significant effect by pupil size variance, and the proportion of spherical aberrations decreased with the decrease of the pupil size.
The wavefront aberrations are significantly different under cycloplegic, scotopic and photopic conditions. Using the wavefront sensor (VISX WaveScan) to measure scotopic wavefront aberrations is feasible for the wavefront-guided refractive surgery.
Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia 04/2012; 75(2):116-21.