Analysis of Internal Optical Aberrations in Eyes with Different Types of Cataract

Abstract

Purpose: The present study investigates the patterns of internal optical aberrations in eyes with different types of cataract. Methods: Eighty eyes of 70 cataract patients were included in the present study. Internal optical aberrations were measured with a KR-1W wavefront aberrometer before cataract operation. Types of cataract were classified into three groups; cortical, nuclear and posterior subcapsular cataracts. The differences in the results of the wavefront data of 6-mm pupil diameter zones were compared among three groups. The Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for comparing data. Results: A total of 80 eyes consisting of 30 cortical cataracts, 30 nuclear cataracts and 20 posterior subcapsular cataracts were found. In the 6-mm pupil diameter zone, the average internal spherical aberrations by original value were 0.042 μm of cortical cataracts, -0.092 μm of nuclear cataracts and -0.109 μm of posterior subcapsular cataracts. The average internal spherical aberrations by absolute value were 0.122 μm of cortical cataracts, 0.533 μm of nuclear cataracts and 0.202 μm of posterior subcapsular cataracts. The internal spherical aberrations by original value were not statistically significantly different, but by absolute value were statistically significantly different (p = 0.003, Kruskal-Wallis test). Nuclear cataracts have a much higher positive or negative value than other cataract groups in the distribution of internal spherical aberrations by original value for each type of cataract. Other than this difference, the internal astigmatism and internal high order aberrations were not statistically significantly different. Conclusions: The change in internal spherical aberrations of nuclear cataract from the original value was larger than cortical and posterior subcapsular cataract. Therefore, nuclear cataracts have much higher positive or negative values than other cataract groups. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2015;56(4):532-540