• Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.105-115
• /
• 2015

Purpose: The accuracy for measuring the refractive power of hydrogel contact lenses by spectacle lens holder and contact lens holder was evaluated. The accuracy for each sample was also analyzed with water content and diopter categories. Methods: The hydrogel contact lenses used for measurement were classified into three categories in water content (38%, 43%, 58%). Also, three diopter categories of refractive power were used such as -3.000 D, -7.000 D, -10.000 D. And also, the reliability of measurement results were evaluated by measuring refractive power with spectacle lens holder and contact lens holder using an Manual lensmeter. Results: In case of spectacle lens holder method, the average value of refractive power was -3.3273D for -3.0000 D, -7.1306 D for -7.0000 D and -10.2944 D for -10.0000 D, respectively. In case of contact lens holder method, the average value of refractive power was -3.1060 D for -3.0000 D, -7.0028 D for -7.0000 D and -10.2611 D for -10.0000 D, respectively. In measurement of all diopters, the accuracy of contact lens holder method was better than spectacle lens holder method. Conclusions: From these results, it is judged that the refractive power of soft contact lens by manual lensmeter with contact lens holder have a higher accuracy than spectacle lens holder.

• Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society
• /
• v.20 no.4
• /
• pp.501-509
• /
• 2015

Purpose: To evaluate the reliability of refractive power by comparing the marked refractive power in an automatic phoropter and actually measured spherical/cylindrical refractive power. Methods: Actual refractive power of minus spherical lens and cylindrical lens in an automatic phoropter was measured by a manual lensmeter and compared with the accuracy of marked refractive power. Furthermore, combined refractive power and spherical equivalent refractive power of two overlapped lenses were compared and evaluated with the refractive power of trial lens. Results: An error of 0.125 D and more against the marked degree was observed in 70.6% of spherical refractive power of spherical lens which is built in phoropter, and the higher error was shown with increasing refractive power. Single cylindrical refractive power of cylindrical lens is almost equivalent to the marked degree. Combined spherical refractive power was equivalent to spherical refractive power of single lens when spherical lens and cylindrical lens were overlapped in a phoropter. Thus, there was no change in spherical refractive power by lens overlapping. However, there was a great difference, which suggest the effect induced by overlapping between cylindrical refractive power and the marked degree when spherical lens and cylindrical lens were overlapped. Spherical equivalent refractive power measured by using a phoropter was lower than that estimated by trial glasses frame and marked degree. The difference was bigger with higher refractive power. Conclusions: When assessment of visual acuity is made by using an automatic phoropter for high myopes or myopic astigmatism, some difference against the marked degree may be produced and they may be overcorrected which suggests that improvement is required.