• Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society
• /
• v.20 no.4
• /
• pp.455-462
• /
• 2015

Purpose: To develop more accurate wet measuring system combining the wet cell, automatic lensmeter and the related software for hydrophilic contact lenses and to verify the accuracy of those measuring holder system already available in the market. Methods: Refractive power measurement were done in both a conventional method which has been commonly used in optical shops and a new method which is recently developed in korea. Hydrophilic contact lens of korean brand was chosen as a test material and was tested by water content ratio and by spherical refractive power. Results: When spherical power of -3.00 D contact lens is measured in the newly developed wet cell measurement holder with automatic lensmeter, it reads -3.01 D at water content ratio of 38%. -3.00 D at 45% and -2.98 D at 58%. The same experiment with the Poster soft contact lens wet cell measurement holder maintaining other conditions same resulted in -3.60 D at the water content ratio of 38%, -3.06 D at 45% and -2.46 D at 58%. Conclusions: At the higher water content, the refractive power values measured by both of the wet cell measuring holders are shown lower, and additionally, the new method using the wet cell holder and new software program in a automatic lensmeter showed more accurate readings than conventional Poster soft contact lens wet cell measuring system.

• Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society
• /
• v.20 no.4
• /
• pp.501-509
• /
• 2015

Purpose: To evaluate the reliability of refractive power by comparing the marked refractive power in an automatic phoropter and actually measured spherical/cylindrical refractive power. Methods: Actual refractive power of minus spherical lens and cylindrical lens in an automatic phoropter was measured by a manual lensmeter and compared with the accuracy of marked refractive power. Furthermore, combined refractive power and spherical equivalent refractive power of two overlapped lenses were compared and evaluated with the refractive power of trial lens. Results: An error of 0.125 D and more against the marked degree was observed in 70.6% of spherical refractive power of spherical lens which is built in phoropter, and the higher error was shown with increasing refractive power. Single cylindrical refractive power of cylindrical lens is almost equivalent to the marked degree. Combined spherical refractive power was equivalent to spherical refractive power of single lens when spherical lens and cylindrical lens were overlapped in a phoropter. Thus, there was no change in spherical refractive power by lens overlapping. However, there was a great difference, which suggest the effect induced by overlapping between cylindrical refractive power and the marked degree when spherical lens and cylindrical lens were overlapped. Spherical equivalent refractive power measured by using a phoropter was lower than that estimated by trial glasses frame and marked degree. The difference was bigger with higher refractive power. Conclusions: When assessment of visual acuity is made by using an automatic phoropter for high myopes or myopic astigmatism, some difference against the marked degree may be produced and they may be overcorrected which suggests that improvement is required.