Dioptric differences between clinically determined and metric‐optimised refractions for adults with Down syndrome

Abstract

AbstractPurposeRefractions based on the optimisation of single‐value wavefront‐derived metrics may help determine appropriate corrections for individuals with Down syndrome where clinical techniques fall short. This study compared dioptric differences between refractions obtained using standard clinical techniques and two metric‐optimised methods: visual Strehl ratio (VSX) and pupil fraction tessellated (PFSt), and investigated characteristics that may contribute to the differences between refraction types.MethodsThirty adults with Down syndrome (age = 29 ± 10 years) participated. Three refractive corrections (VSX, PFSt and clinical) were determined and converted to vector notation (M, J0, J45) to calculate the dioptric difference between pairings of each type using a mixed model repeated measures approach. Linear correlations and multivariable regression were performed to examine the relationship between dioptric differences and the following participant characteristics: higher order root mean square (RMS) for a 4 mm pupil diameter, spherical equivalent refractive error and Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (a measure of developmental ability).ResultsThe least squares mean estimates (standard error) of the dioptric differences for each pairing were as follows: VSX versus PFSt = 0.51 D (0.11); VSX versus clinical = 1.19 D (0.11) and PFSt versus clinical = 1.04 D (0.11). There was a statistically significant difference in the dioptric differences between the clinical refraction and each of the metric‐optimised refractions (p < 0.001). Increased dioptric differences in refraction were correlated with increased higher order RMS (R = 0.64,p < 0.001 [VSX vs. clinical] andR = 0.47,p < 0.001 [PFSt vs. clinical]) as well as increased myopic spherical equivalent refractive error (R = 0.37,p = 0.004 [VSX vs. clinical] andR = 0.51,p < 0.001 [PFSt vs. clinical]).ConclusionsThe observed differences in refraction demonstrate that a significant portion of the refractive uncertainty is related to increased higher order aberrations and myopic refractive error. Methodology surrounding clinical techniques and metric‐optimisation based on wavefront aberrometry may explain the difference in refractive endpoints.