Purpose To evaluate the effect of the optical zone diameter (OZ) in orthokeratology contact lenses regarding the topographical profile in patients with high myopia (−4.00 D to −7.00 D) and to study its effect over the visual quality. Materials and Methods Twelve patients (18 eyes) were fitted with overnight orthokeratology (OrthoK) with a randomized 6 mm or 5 mm OZ lens worn for 2 weeks, followed by a 2-week washout period, between both designs. Keratometry (K) readings, optical zone treatment diameter (OZT), peripheral ring width (PRW), higher-order aberrations (HOA), high (HC) and low contrast (LC) visual acuity, and subjective vision and comfort were measured at baseline and after 2 weeks of OrthoK lens wear of each contact lens. Results No significant differences were found between any measurements for the same subject at both baselines (p value > 0.05). There was no difference between OZ lens designs found in refraction, subjective vision or comfort, and HC and LC visual acuity. Contrast sensitivity was decreased in the 5 mm OZ lens design compared with 6 mm OZ design (p-value < 0.05). 5 mm OZ design provoked a greater flattening, more powerful midperipheral ring and 4th-order corneal and total spherical aberration than the 6 mm OZ design, being statistically significant after 7 days, for corneal aberration, and 15 days, for corneal and total, of wearing the lens (p-value < 0.05). The OZT obtained were 2.8 ± 0.2 mm and 3.1 ± 0.1 mm for 5 mm and 6 mm OZ design, respectively (p-value < 0.05). Regarding PRW, the 5 mm OZ design had a wider ring width in both the nasal and temporal zones (p-value < 0.05). Conclusions A smaller diameter optical zone (5 mm) in orthokeratology lenses produces a smaller treatment area and a larger and more powerful midperipheral ring, increasing the 4th-order spherical aberration that affects only the contrast sensitivity but without differences in visual acuity and subjective vision compared with a larger OZ diameter (6 mm).

The performance of the Eye Refract (Luneau Technology, Chartres, France), a new instrument to perform aberrometry-based automated subjective refraction, has been previously evaluated in healthy subjects. However, its clinical implications in other ocular conditions are still unknown. PURPOSE:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the agreement between the Eye Refract and the traditional subjective refraction, as the criterion standard, in keratoconus patients with and without intracorneal ring segments (ICRSs).METHODS: A total of 50 eyes of 50 keratoconus patients were evaluated, dividing the sample into 2 groups: 27 eyes without ICRS (37.78 ± 9.35 years) and 23 eyes with ICRS (39.26 ± 13.62 years). An optometrist conducted the refraction with the Eye Refract, and another different optometrist conducted the traditional subjective refraction on the same day. Spherical equivalent (M), cylindrical vectors (J 0 and J 45 ), and corrected distance visual acuity were compared between both methods of refraction. In addition, Bland-Altman analysis was performed to assess the agreement between both methods of refraction.RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences (P ≥ .05) between the Eye Refract and the traditional subjective refraction for all the variables under study in either group. Without ICRS, the mean difference and 95% limits of agreement (upper, lower) were −0.20 (+1.50, −1.89) D for M, −0.14 (+1.40, −1.68) D for J 0 , and +0.05 (+1.23, −1.14) D for J 45 . With ICRS, these values worsened to −0.62 (+3.89, −5.12) D for M, +0.06 (+2.46, −2.34) D for J 0 , and −0.02 (+2.23, −2.28) D for J 45 .CONCLUSIONS: The Eye Refract seems to offer similar results compared with the traditional subjective refraction in keratoconus patients not implanted with ICRS. However, some patients could show abnormal measurements, especially those with ICRS, who should be treated with caution in clinical practice.

No abstract