Search

Purpose: To validate in the clinic the Adaptive Optics Visual Simulator VAO (Voptica SL, Murcia, Spain). Setting: Laboratory of Clinical Optics, University of Murcia, Spain. Methods: Adaptive optics visual simulators have been widely used in research laboratories for various applications within the visual sciences, however, their use in clinical practice has been limited. Recently, an Adaptive Optics Visual Simulator (VAO, Voptica S.L) has been commercially introduced as a medical device for clinical use. VAO combines optical measurements and visual testing within the same compact instrument. It incorporates a Hartmann‐Shack wave‐front sensor to measure objective refraction and aberrations, together with a spatial light modulator capable of correcting or inducing any optical profile while performing visual testing. In seventy‐six eyes from 38 subjects, subjective refraction (SR) was measured using VAO and trial frame as a gold standard (GS). The agreement of spherical equivalent (M) and cross cylinders (J0 and J45) between SR with VAO and with the GS was estimated using different statistic parameters: 95% confidence limits (CL), Student's t‐test or Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Pearson correlation coefficient (r). Results: There was a strong correlation (r ranged between 0.88 and 0.99) for subjective refraction (M, J0, J45) between GS and VAO and there were not statistically significant differences (p > 0.05). The 95% CL of M, J0 and J45 were ±0.58, ±0.14 and ±0.14 D respectively. In addition to the subjective refraction, the visual acuity was also validated comparing BCVA values from GS with those from VAO, a high correlation (ρ = 0.73) was found for BCVA between both methods. Individual differences in BCVA between both methods were around or below 1 line since 95% CI was ±0.10 LogMAR. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that VAO, the new instrument for vision analysis based on adaptive optics, provides measurements that are comparable to those of the gold standard technique in healthy eyes with 73.7% of the spherical equivalent (M) differences between them within ±0.25 D and 68.4% for BCVA within ±0.05 LogMAR. Thus, subjective refraction found with VAO can be used for prescribing, as a baseline to simulate any optical profile and to customize the selection of the ablation and the IOL design in refractive surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]