International Ophthalmology

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 791–796 | Cite as

Prediction of pupil size under binocular open-view settings using the new CASIA2 device

  • Tsukasa SatouEmail author
  • Sayaka Kato
  • Akihito Igarashi
  • Misae Ito
  • Shuntaro Tsunehiro
  • Manabu Koshimizu
  • Takahiro Niida
  • Kimiya Shimizu
Original Paper



Pupillometry should be performed under conditions as close to natural viewing as possible. The present study aimed to determine whether pupil size in binocular open-view settings can be predicted based on pupil size measured using the CASIA2 device.


The present study included 61 participants (25 men and 36 women; mean age, 49 ± 15 years; age range, 22–69 years) with no history of ophthalmic disease other than refractive errors and cataract. We measured pupil size using the new CASIA2 device and a binocular open-view digital pupillometer (FP-10000II, TMI Co., Ltd., Saitama). Intra-class and inter-class reliabilities were evaluated by measuring pupil times three times with each device (two independent examiners) in 21 of the 61 participants. Reproducibility was analyzed using intra-class and inter-class correlation coefficients (ICCs). Regression formulae for calculating FP10000II pupil size based on CASIA2 pupil size were developed via simple linear regression analyses.


Both devices exhibited high ICC values (> 0.80). The regression formulae for calculating the FP10000II pupil size for the distant and near views based on CASIA2 pupil size were y = 0.5702x + 0.4611 (determination coefficient, 0.67) and y = 0.502x + 0.445 (determination coefficient, 0.64), respectively.


Pupil size under binocular open-view settings can be predicted based on simultaneous measurement of pupil size during evaluation of the anterior segment using the CASIA2 device. The calculated pupil size may represent a useful index for determining the most appropriate treatment strategy in candidates for cataract and refractive surgery.


CASIA2 Binocular open-view digital pupillometer Pupil size Prediction 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements) or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Kawamorita T, Uozato H, Handa T, Ito M, Shimizu K (2010) Effect of pupil size on visual acuity in a laboratory model of pseudophakic monovision. J Refract Surg 26:378–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shimizu K (2011) Monovision strategies. CRST Europe, p 50–51.
  3. 3.
    Hayashi K, Hayashi H, Nakao F, Hayashi F (2001) Correlation between pupillary size and intraocular lens decentration and visual acuity of a zonal-progressive multifocal lens and a monofocal lens. Ophthalmology 108:2011–2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alio JL, Plaza-Puche AB, Férnandez-Buenaga R, Pikkel J, Maldonado M (2017) Multifocal intraocular lenses: an overview. Surv Ophthalmol 62:611–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McDonald JE 2nd, El-Moatassem Kotb AM, Decker BB (2001) Effect of brimonidine tartrate ophthalmic solution 0.2% on pupil size in normal eyes under different luminance conditions. J Cataract Refract Surg 27:560–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee JH, You YS, Choe CM, Lee ES (2008) Efficacy of brimonidine tartrate 0.2% ophthalmic solution in reducing halos after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:963–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chaidaroon W, Juwattanasomran W (2002) Colvard pupillometer measurement of scotopic pupil diameter in emmetropes and myopes. Jpn J Ophthalmol 46:640–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Witting MD, Goyal D (2003) Normal pupillary size in fluorescent and bright light. Ann Emerg Med 41:247–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Malyugin BE, Shpak AA, Pokrovskiy DF (2015) Posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens sizing based on iris pigment layer measurements by anterior segment optical coherence tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:1616–1622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goto S, Maeda N, Koh S, Ohnuma K, Hayashi K, Iehisa I, Noda T, Nishida K (2016) Prediction of postoperative intraocular lens position with angle-to-angle depth using anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology 123:2474–2480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lucisano A, Ferrise M, Balestrieri M, Busin M, Scorcia V (2017) Evaluation of postoperative toric intraocular lens alignment with anterior segment optical coherence tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg 43:1007–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shoji T, Kato N, Ishikawa S, Ibuki H, Yamada N, Kimura I, Shinoda K (2017) In vivo crystalline lens measurements with novel swept-source optical coherent tomography: an investigation on variability of measurement. BMJ Open Ophthalmol 1:e000058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wolffsohn JS, Hunt OA, Gilmartin B (2002) Continuous measurement of accommodation in human factor applications. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 22:380–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kurz S, Krummenauer F, Pfeiffer N, Dick HB (2004) Monocular versus binocular pupillometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 30:2551–2556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kobashi H, Kamiya K, Handa T, Ando W, Kawamorita T, Igarashi A, Shimizu K (2015) Comparison of subjective refraction under binocular and monocular conditions in myopic subjects. Sci Rep 5:12606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Handa T, Shoji N, Kawamorita T, Shimizu K, Kawamura R, Shimizu N (2012) Development of a wide-field, binocular, open-view type electronic pupillometer. J Refract Surg 28:672–673Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kanellopoulos AJ, Asimellis G, Georgiadou S (2015) Digital pupillometry and centroid shift changes after cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:408–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bilak S, Simsek A, Capkin M, Guler M, Bilgin B (2015) Biometric and intraocular pressure change after cataract surgery. Optom Vis Sci 92:464–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kamiya K, Shimizu K, Igarashi A, Ishikawa H (2010) Evaluation of pupil diameter after posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation. Eye (Lond) 24:588–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Li D, Yang Y, Su C, Yin H, Liu X (2015) Pupil diameter changes in high myopes after collamer lens implantation. Optom Vis Sci 92:1161–1169CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tsukasa Satou
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Sayaka Kato
    • 2
  • Akihito Igarashi
    • 2
    • 3
  • Misae Ito
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Shuntaro Tsunehiro
    • 2
    • 3
  • Manabu Koshimizu
    • 2
    • 3
  • Takahiro Niida
    • 1
    • 3
  • Kimiya Shimizu
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Orthoptics and Visual Sciences, School of Health SciencesInternational University of Health and WelfareOhtawaraJapan
  2. 2.Eye CenterSanno HospitalTokyoJapan
  3. 3.International University of Health and WelfareTochigiJapan

Personalised recommendations