【摘要】：目的比較矢量分解驗(yàn)光法和常規(guī)主覺(jué)驗(yàn)光法在不同程度散光下的應(yīng)用。方法共納入143名被檢者的143只右眼,根據(jù)散光度數(shù)0~1.50 D和散光度數(shù)1.50~3.00 D分為低散光組和高散光組,被檢者先后接受兩名視光醫(yī)師的使用矢量分解驗(yàn)光法和常規(guī)主覺(jué)驗(yàn)光法獲取驗(yàn)光數(shù)據(jù),比較等效球鏡M分量、J0分量、J45分量以及驗(yàn)光時(shí)長(zhǎng)的差異。結(jié)果高、低散光組間的年齡、性別、M分量、J45分量和常規(guī)主覺(jué)驗(yàn)光耗時(shí)差異均沒(méi)有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(均為P0.05),兩組間的常規(guī)主覺(jué)J0和矢量驗(yàn)光J0差異均有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(均為P=0.00)。低散光組中,分別使用常規(guī)主覺(jué)驗(yàn)光和矢量驗(yàn)光法所測(cè)得的M、J0和J45一致性較好,差值絕對(duì)值的平均值分別為0.04 D、0.02 D和0.02 D,一致性界限范圍內(nèi),常規(guī)主覺(jué)驗(yàn)光和矢量驗(yàn)光的差值絕對(duì)值最大分別為0.37 D、0.13 D和0.17 D,且驗(yàn)光時(shí)長(zhǎng)差異無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P=0.72)。高散光組中,分別使用常規(guī)主覺(jué)驗(yàn)光和矢量驗(yàn)光法所測(cè)得的M、J0和J45一致性較差,差值絕對(duì)值的平均值分別為0.43 D、0.21 D和0.00 D,一致性界限范圍內(nèi),常規(guī)主覺(jué)和矢量驗(yàn)光的差值絕對(duì)值最大分別為0.75 D、0.50 D和0.30 D,且驗(yàn)光時(shí)長(zhǎng)差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P=0.00),矢量驗(yàn)光法耗時(shí)較長(zhǎng)。結(jié)論目前的矢量分解驗(yàn)光法只在針對(duì)較低的散光時(shí)有較好的表現(xiàn),需要對(duì)其進(jìn)一步完善,使其能較好地應(yīng)用于臨床。
[Abstract]:Objective to compare the application of vector decomposition optometry and routine principal optometry in different degrees of astigmatism. Methods 143 right eyes of 143 subjects were divided into low astigmatism group and high astigmatism group according to the astigmatism 0 ~ 1.50D and astigmatism 1.50 ~ 3.00D, respectively. The two optometrists used vector decomposition optometry and routine principal optometry to obtain the optometry data. The differences of M component, J0 component, J45 component and optometry duration of the equivalent spherical mirror were compared. Results there was no significant difference in age, sex, M component, J45 component and routine principal optometry time between high and low astigmatism groups (P0.05). There were significant differences between the two groups in routine principal perception J 0 and vector optometry J 0 (all P 0 0.00). In the low astigmatism group, the average values of MnJ 0 and J 45 measured by conventional principal optometry and vector optometry were 0.04 D 0.02 D and 0.02 D respectively, and the average values of the absolute values were 0.04 DX 0.02 D and 0.02 D, respectively. The absolute values of the difference between conventional principal optometry and vector optometry were 0.37 DX 0.13 D and 0.17 D respectively, and there was no significant difference in optometry duration (P0. 72). In the high astigmatism group, the consistency of MnJ 0 and J 45 measured by routine principal optometry and vector optometry was poor. The average absolute value of the difference was 0.43 DX 0.21 D and 0.00 D, respectively. The absolute values of the difference between conventional principal perception and vector optometry were 0.75 DX 0.50 D and 0.30 D respectively, and the difference of optometry time was statistically significant (P0. 00). Vector optometry took a long time. Conclusion the current vector decomposition optometry has good performance only for low astigmatism and needs to be further improved so that it can be used in clinical practice.
【作者單位】： 溫州醫(yī)科大學(xué)附屬眼視光醫(yī)院視光學(xué)�？�;溫州醫(yī)科大學(xué)附屬眼視光醫(yī)院手術(shù)中心;
【分類號(hào)】：R778.2

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 藍(lán)方方;劉洪婷;劉偉民;;主覺(jué)驗(yàn)光在40例青少年驗(yàn)光中的臨床應(yīng)用研究[J];廣西醫(yī)學(xué);2008年10期

2 邱迎紅;吳荒;岳志強(qiáng);;暗適應(yīng)對(duì)主覺(jué)驗(yàn)光中雙眼平衡的影響[J];中國(guó)實(shí)驗(yàn)診斷學(xué);2009年03期

3 竺向佳;戴錦暉;褚仁遠(yuǎn);賀極蒼;盧奕;周行濤;汪琳;;WASCA像差分析儀與主覺(jué)驗(yàn)光測(cè)量散光的差異及影響因素分析[J];眼科研究;2008年10期

，

本文編號(hào)：2358182