Aniseikonia Comparison as Measured by Aniseikonia Inspector, Version 3, and Aniseikonia Smart Optometry, Version 3.6

Purpose: To compare the computerized Aniseikonia Inspector, version 3, with the Aniseikonia Smart Optometry, version 3.6, for the measurement of aniseikonia.

Methods: 103 subjects, ages 33 to 90 years, who had previously undergone bilateral cataract surgery (sequential), without complications, with monofocal IOL implantation, who had postoperatively anisometropia in spherical equivalent equal to or greater than 1.00D, with normal binocular vision and normal visual acuity were selected for the study. The aniseikonia was measured with the Aniseikonia Inspector, Version 3, and the Aniseikonia Smart Optometry, version 3.6, with their habitual refractive correction from far and near.

Results: In horizontal aniseikonia analysis, the median of the difference between Aniseikonia Inspector 3 and Smart Optometry measurements was 2% in the anisometropia group and 1% in the control group. Horizontal values were statistically equal in both (p-value = 0.745; p-value = 0.587). The mean difference was 2.05% in the anisometropia group 1.63% in the control group while the percentage of differences out of the limits of agreement adopted was 0.08% in the anisometropia group and 0.04% in the control group. In vertical aniseikonia analysis, the median of the difference between Aniseikonia Inspector 3 and Smart Optometry measurements was 1.45% in the anisometropia group and 1% in the control group. Vertical values were statistically equal in both (p-value = 0.574; p-value = 0.563). The mean difference was 2.06% in the anisometropia group 1.89% the control group while the percentage of differences out of the limits of agreement adopted was 0.05% in the anisometropia group and 0.10% in the control group.

Conclusions: Under the conditions of this study, given the high grade of agreement between Smart Optometry and Aniseikonia Inspector for aniseikonia assessment, Smart Optometry’s Aniseikonia Test could be considered a valid alternative for clinical use. More studies are needed to validate this method in other age groups.