• Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.219-225
• /
• 2010

Purpose: Usefulness in predicting the power of spherical rigid gas-pearmeable (RGP) lenses prescription using dioptric power matrices and arithmetic calculations was evaluated in this study. Noncycloplegic refractive errors and over-refractions were performed on 110 eyes of 55 subjects (36 males and 19 females, aged $24.60{\pm}1.55$years) in twenties objectively with an auto-refractometer (with keratometer) and subjectively. Tear lenses were calculated from keratometric readings and base curves of RGP lenses, and the power of RGP lenses were computed by a dioptric power matrix and an arithmetic calculation from the manifest refraction and the tear lens, and were compared with those by over-refractions in terms of spherical (Sph), spherical quivalent (SE) and astigmatic power. Results: The mean difference (MD) and 95% limits of agreement (LOA=$MD{\pm}1.96SD$) were better for SE (0.26D, $0.26{\pm}0.70D$) than for Sph (0.61D, $0.61{\pm}0.86D$). The mean difference and agreement of the cylindrical power between matrix and arithmetic calculation (-0.13D, $-0.13{\pm}0.53D$) were better than between the others (-0.24D, $0.24{\pm}0.84D$ between matrix and over-refraction; -0.12D, $0.12{\pm}1.00D$ between arithmetic calculation and over-refraction). The fitness of spherical RGP lenses were 54.5% for matrix, 66.4% for arithmetic calculation and 91.8% for over-refraction. Arithmetic calculation was close to the over-refraction. Conclusions: In predicting indications and powers of spherical RGP lens fitting, although there are the differences of axis between total (spectacle) astigmatism and corneal astigmatism, Spherical equivalent using an arithmetic calculation provides a more useful application than using a dioptric power matrix.

• Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.71-76
• /
• 2003

This study was performed to survey dioptric differences between the refractive states of both eyes from 1,100 patients who were given their prescriptions in spectacles. The differences were obtained by using dioptric power matrix. The prevalence of anisometropia was 96.9% for isoanisometropia, 2.9% for simple anisometropia, 0.2% for antimetropia. Spherical anisometropia was 22.1%, cylindrical anisometropia was 10.9%, spherocylindrical anisometropia was 46.5%, and no anisometropia was 20.5%. Anisometropia was more in thirties and forties than in other groups. In distribution of only spherical diopter differences, 76.1% were less than 0.50D, 91.7% were under 1.00D, only 2.5% were over 2.00D. In cylindrical diopter differences alone, 93.3% had under 0.50D, 1.7% had more than 1.00D. In spherocylindrical anisometropia, 52.8% were less than 0.50D, 78.6% were under 1.00D, 5.1% were more than 2.00D. In axis differences, with-the-rule type was 29.9%, against-the-rule type was 29.8%, oblique type was 40.3%.