Autorefractometry after laser in situ keratomileusis

Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 133-137

  Siganos, Dimitrios S ^a   Popescu, Corina ^a   Bessis, Nikolaos ^a   Papastergiou, Georgios ^a  

^a Vlemma Eye Institute   (Greece)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCOMMODATION PARALYSIS; ADULT; ARTICLE; ASTIGMATISM; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EYE AXIS LENGTH; EYE REFRACTION; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KERATOMILEUSIS; MYOPIA; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REFRACTOMETER; REFRACTOMETRY; RELIABILITY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TREATMENT PLANNING;

EID: 0037260247     PISSN: 08863350     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0886-3350(02)01743-1     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Sugar A, Rapuano CJ, Culbertson WW, et al. Laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia and astigmatism: safety and efficacy; a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 2002; 109:175-187
2. Pallikaris IG, Papatzanaki ME, Siganos DS, Tsilimbaris MK. A corneal flap technique for laser in situ keratomileusis; human studies. Arch Ophthalmol 1991; 109:1699-1702
3. Hugger P, Kohnen T, La Rosa FA, et al. Comparison of changes in manifest refraction and corneal power after photorefractive keratectomy. Am J Ophthalmol 2000; 129:68-75
4. Smith RJ, Chang W-K, Maloney RK. The prediction of surgically induced refractive change from corneal topography. Am J Ophthalmol 1998; 125:44-53
5. Nguyen NX, Langenbucher A, Viestenz A, et al. Correlation among refractive, keratometric and topographic astigmatism after myopic photorefractive keratectomy. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2000; 238:642-646
6. Olsen H, Hjortdal JØ, Ehlers N. Comparison of objective methods for quantifying the refractive effect of photo-astigmatic refractive keratectomy using the MEL-60 excimer laser. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1997; 75:629-633
7. Øyo-Szerenyi KD, Wienecke L, Businger U, Schipper I. Autorefraction/autokeratometry and subjective refraction in untreated and photorefractive keratectomy-treated eyes. Arch Ophthalmol 1997; 115:157-164
8. Kinge B, Midelfart A, Jacobsen G. Clinical evaluation of the Allergan Humphrey 500 autorefractor and the Nidek AR-1000 autorefractor. Br J Ophthalmol 1996; 80:35-39
9. Wong EK Jr, Patella VM, Pratt MV, et al. Clinical evaluation of the Humphrey automatic refractor. Arch Ophthalmol 1994; 102:870-875
10. Cordonnier M, Dramaix M. Screening for refractive errors in children: accuracy of the handheld refractor Retinomax to screen for astigmatism. Br J Ophthalmol 1999; 83:157-161
11. Berman M, Nelson P, Caden B. Objective refraction: comparison of retinoscopy and automated techniques. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1984; 61:204-209
12. Salvesen S, Køhler M. Automated refraction; a comparative study of automated refraction with the Nidek AR-1000 autorefractor and retinoscopy. Acta Ophthalmol 1991; 69:342-346
13. Russell GE, Bergmanson JPG, Barbeito R, Cross WD. Differences between objective and subjective refractions after radial keratometry. Refract Corneal Surg 1992; 8:290-295
14. Assil KK, Quantock AJ. Wound healing in response to keratorefractive surgery. Surv Ophthalmol 1993; 38:289-302
15. Spadea L, Fasciani R, Necozione S, Balestrazzi E. Role of the corneal epithelium in refractive changes following laser in situ keratomileusis for high myopia. J Refract Surg 2000; 16:133-139
16. Patel S, Marshall J, Fitzke FW III. Refractive index of the human corneal epithelium and stroma. J Refract Surg 1995; 11:100-105
17. Patel S, Alió JL, Pérez-Santonja JJ. A model to explain the difference between changes in refraction and central ocular surface power after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Refract Surg 2000; 16:330-335