wavescan wavefront aberrometer (Johnson & Johnson)
86
Structured Review
Johnson & Johnson
wavescan wavefront aberrometer
Wavescan Wavefront Aberrometer, supplied by Johnson & Johnson, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 86/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/wavescan+aberrometer/aberrometer+wavefront/10__1097_slash_icl__0000000000001266-77-10-13
Average 86 stars, based on 1 article reviews
Wavescan Wavefront Aberrometer, supplied by Johnson & Johnson, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 86/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/wavescan+aberrometer/aberrometer+wavefront/10__1097_slash_icl__0000000000001266-77-10-13
Average 86 stars, based on 1 article reviews
wavescan wavefront aberrometer - by Bioz Stars,
2026-10
86/100 stars
Images
Related Articles
other:Article Title: Comparison of Ocular Monochromatic Higher-order Aberrations in Normal Refractive Surgery Candidates of Arab and South Asian Origin Article Snippet: This Article Title: Effect of residual ocular spherical aberration on objective and subjective quality of vision in pseudophakic eyes. Article Snippet: METHODS: Six months after microincision (1.8 mm) cataract surgery with aspheric IOL implantation, total aberrations were computed using a Wavescan aberrometer.. The modulation transfer function (MTF), Strehl ratio, and objective index of scattering were measured using the Objective Quality Analysis System.. Objective depth of focus was computed as the focus range at which the Strehl ratio did not fall below 50% of maximum. Article Title: Validity of Scaling Zernike Coefficients to a Larger Diameter for Refractive Surgery Article Snippet: METHODS: Using 4256 preoperative wavefront examinations, the variability of inter-examination wavefront root-mean-square (RMS) was compared to the error induced due to scaling Zernike coeffi cients to a larger diameter.. The validity of scaling Zernike coeffi cients was set when the error due to the scaling was the same as the variability of the inter-examination wavefronts.. The inter-examination variability was calculated from eyes having at least 3 same-day, preoperative examinations over the same diameters. Article Title: Visual outcome after correcting the refractive error of large pupil patients with wavefront-guided ablation Article Snippet: A similar finding was reported by Tuan and Liang in a study evaluating the CS outcomes after wavefront-guided procedures using the WaveScan aberrometer (Abbott Medical Optics Inc) and the Article Title: Treatment of visual problems after intracorneal ring implantation Article Snippet: The wavefront-guided ablation pattern was prepared using a WaveScan aberrometer and transferred to a Comparison:Article Title: Multiple regression analysis in nomogram development for myopic wavefront laser in situ keratomileusis: Improving astigmatic outcomes. Article Snippet: RESULTS: The 3-month refractive results for myopic wavefront LASIK (spherical equivalent %11.0 D; cylinder %4.5 D) were compared between 299 consecutive eyes treated using the earlier nomogram (nomogram I) in 2009 and 2010 and 414 eyes treated using nomogram II in 2011 and 2012.. There was no significant difference in treatment accuracy (variance in the postoperative manifest refraction spherical equivalent error) between nomogram I and nomogram II (P Z .73, Bartlett test).. Fewer patients treated with nomogram II had more than 0.5 D of residual postoperative astigmatism (P Z .0001, Fisher exact test). Software:Article Title: Multiple regression analysis in nomogram development for myopic wavefront laser in situ keratomileusis: Improving astigmatic outcomes. Article Snippet: RESULTS: The 3-month refractive results for myopic wavefront LASIK (spherical equivalent %11.0 D; cylinder %4.5 D) were compared between 299 consecutive eyes treated using the earlier nomogram (nomogram I) in 2009 and 2010 and 414 eyes treated using nomogram II in 2011 and 2012.. There was no significant difference in treatment accuracy (variance in the postoperative manifest refraction spherical equivalent error) between nomogram I and nomogram II (P Z .73, Bartlett test).. Fewer patients treated with nomogram II had more than 0.5 D of residual postoperative astigmatism (P Z .0001, Fisher exact test). |