RT info:eu-repo/semantics/article
T1 Comparison of physiognomy and frame angle parameters using different devices to prescribe progressive addition lenses
A1 García Espinilla, Óscar
A1 Martín Herranz, Raúl
A1 Sánchez Pavón, Irene
A1 Cañadas Suárez, María del Pilar
A1 Gallegos Cocho, Inés
K1 Optometría
K1 Physiognomy parameters
K1 Presbyopia
K1 Presbyopic correction
K1 Progressive addition lenses
AB Clinical relevance: Accurate measurement of several physiognomy parameters (interpupillary, nasopupillaryand fitting height distances) and frame angles (pantoscopic and frame wrap angles) isessential for prescribing progressive addition lenses for presbyopic patients.Background: Few reports have described the repeatability of different devices commonly used toconduct essential measurements for prescribing progressive addition lenses.Methods: Interpupillary, nasopupillary (at far and near distances) and fitting point heights weremeasured three consecutive times in 21 healthy volunteers with four devices (traditional frame ruler,PD-5 interpupilometer, OptiCenter, and VisiOffice). Pantoscopic and wrap frame angles were alsomeasured three times with Essilor standard pantoscopic ruler, Opticenter and VisiOffice.Results: The frame ruler, PD-5 and Opticenter showed better repeatability for interpupillary and nasopupillarydistance (co-efficient of variation close to 1%, within-subject standard deviation or Sw < 0.50 mm)measurements at far and near distances than Visioffice (co-efficient of variation > 2%, Sw > 0.50 mm).Fitting point heights measurements showed worse repeatability with all devices (frame ruler: co-efficientof variation close to 5%, Sw = 0.46 mm; Opticenter co-efficient of variation > 5%, Sw > 0.80 mm; Visiofficeco-efficient of variation > 10%, Sw > 1.50 mm). Pantoscopic angle measurements showed very lowrepeatability with the ruler and Opticenter (co-efficient of variation > 25%, Sw > 1.90 mm). The framewrap angle showed unacceptable repeatability values with the ruler (co-efficient of variation > 10%,Sw = 0.49º) and Visioffice (co-efficient of variation > 60%, Sw > 2.50º), but acceptable repeatability withOpticenter (co-efficient of variation < 1%, Sw = 0.05º).Conclusions: Interpupillary and nasopupillary distance measurement showed acceptable repeatabilitywith all the assessed methods; however, these measurements alone are no longer sufficient forfree-form progressive addition lens prescription, which requires fitting point heights and pantoscopicand frame wrap angle measurement. Such measures display a lack of repeatability that could inducecentration errors and could affect vision and/or adaptation of the user.
SN 0816-4622
YR 2021
FD 2021
LK https://uvadoc.uva.es/handle/10324/65289
UL https://uvadoc.uva.es/handle/10324/65289
LA spa
NO Clinical and Experimental Optometry, Mayo 2022 , vol. 105 p. 420-427
NO Producción Científica
DS UVaDOC
RD 27-ago-2025