COMPARISON BETWEEN AUTOREFRACTION AND RETINOSCOPY FOR SUBJECTIVE CORRECTION IN CHILDREN

MA YAR; AH ZAHID; R NAWAB; MRQ RAO; N AADIL; S HUSSAIN

doi:10.54112/bcsrj.v2023i1.608

Authors

MA YAR Department Of Ophthalmology, Nishtar Medical University and Hospital Multan, Pakistan
AH ZAHID Department Of Ophthalmology, Nishtar Medical University and Hospital Multan, Pakistan
R NAWAB Department Of Ophthalmology, Nishtar Medical University and Hospital Multan, Pakistan
MRQ RAO Department Of Ophthalmology, Nishtar Medical University and Hospital Multan, Pakistan
N AADIL Department Of Ophthalmology, Nishtar Medical University and Hospital Multan, Pakistan
S HUSSAIN Department Of Ophthalmology, Nishtar Medical University and Hospital Multan, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v2023i1.608

Keywords:

Autorefraction, Retinoscopy, Subjective Correction

Abstract

The study's objective was to compare the accuracy of retinoscopy and autorefraction for subjective correction in children. The study was conducted in the Department of Ophthalmology at Nishtar Medical Hospital from June 2021 to May 2022, and it was a prospective study. The study included 60 children aged between 6 to 15 years who had asthenopic symptoms and blurring of vision. The children were given cyclopentolate 1% eyedrops thrice at intervals of 10 minutes to achieve cycloplegia. After an hour of instilling eye drops, cycloplegic retinoscopy, and autorefractometry were performed. Three values of each technique were recorded, and the average was calculated. After three days, binocular and monocular subjective refraction was performed until the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was achieved. Results showed that 40.8% (49 eyes) were hypermetric, and 50% (60 eyes) were myopic based on subjective refraction. Comparison of spherical error by subjective refraction and retinoscopy showed that myopic eyes had a mean of -1.36 ± .98 and -1.08± .82 on subjective correction and retinoscopy, respectively (P=.07), and hypermetropic eyes had a mean of 2.5± .22 and 2.45± .22 on subjective correction and retinoscopy, respectively (P=0.07). Comparison of spherical error by subjective refraction and autorefractometer showed myopic eyes had a mean value of -1.51 ± 1.3 on autorefraction (P=.0001) while hypermetropic eyes had a mean of 2.39± .37 on autorefraction (P=0.0001). Mean cylindrical error values by retinoscopy were -.0729± .304, and by the subjective method, were -.167± .384 (P =0.0007). Mean cylindrical error values by autorefraction were .207± .487 compared to -.167± .384 by the subjective method (P =0.0088). In conclusion, conventional retinoscopy is the most accurate and reliable method for estimating the refractive status. However, autorefraction also has acceptable accuracy and can be used for cylindrical correction.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bourne, R., Steinmetz, J. D., Flaxman, S., Briant, P. S., Taylor, H. R., Resnikoff, S., Casson, R. J., Abdoli, A., Abu-Gharbieh, E., and Afshin, A. (2021). Trends in prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment over 30 years: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. The Lancet global health 9, e130-e143.

Cheng, D., and Woo, G. C. (2021). Instant vision assessment device for measuring refraction in low vision. Clinical and Experimental Optometry 104, 780-787.

Eltagoury, M., and Ghoneim, E. (2023). Pediatric cycloplegic refraction. Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation in optometry 4, 25-33.

Gu, F., Gao, H. M., Zheng, X., Gu, L., Huang, J., Meng, J., Li, J., Gao, L., Wang, J., and Zhang, R. (2022). Effect of cycloplegia on refractive error measure in Chinese school students. Ophthalmic Epidemiology 29, 629-639.

Huang, P.-C., Hsiao, Y.-C., Tsai, C.-Y., Tsai, D.-C., Chen, C.-W., Hsu, C.-C., Huang, S.-C., Lin, M.-H., and Liou, Y.-M. (2020). Protective behaviors of near work and time outdoors in myopia prevalence and progression in myopic children: a 2-year prospective population study. British Journal of Ophthalmology 104, 956-961.

Jahn, S. W., Plass, M., and Moinfar, F. (2020). Digital pathology: advantages, limitations, and emerging perspectives. Journal of Clinical Medicine 9, 3697.

Kedia, P., and Baruah, M. (2022). A study on non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic streak retinoscopy and autorefractometry in children. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences 10, 919.

Khan, M. A., Perera, N., Doukas, F. F., Catran, A. J., Ling, D. L., Agar, A., and Francis, I. C. (2023). Are you practicing refraction in ophthalmology: instructive or outdated? A prospective study and literature review. Clinical and Experimental Optometry 106, 290-295.

Lei, Y., Chen, X., Cheng, M., Li, B., Jiang, Y., Xu, Y., and Wang, X. (2023). Comparisons of objective and subjective refraction with and without cycloplegia using binocular wavefront optometer with autorefraction and retinoscopy in school-age children. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 261, 1465-1472.

Magome, K., Morishige, N., Ueno, A., Matsui, T.-A., and Uchio, E. (2021). Prediction of cycloplegic refraction for noninvasive screening of children for refractive error. Plos one 16, e0248494.

Mohana Priya, M., Ravi, S., and Anuradha, P. Comparison of Autorefractors and Retinoscopy with Subjective Corrections in Myopia and Hypermetropia.

Mukash, S. N., Kayembe, D. L., and Mwanza, J.-C. (2021). Agreement between retinoscopy, autorefractometry, and subjective refraction for determining refractive errors in Congolese children. Clinical Optometry, 129-136.

Nafea, R. D., and Abed, S. A. (2023). The Cycloplegic Autorefraction Related with Retinoscopy Patients (Article Review). Central Asian Journal of Medical and Natural Science 4, 937-942.

Nisha, K., Ganapathy, S., Puthumangalathu Savithri, S., Idaguri, M., Mohanachandran, P., Vinekar, A., Chandra, P., Kulkarni, S., and Dogra, M. (2023). A novel method to improve inter-clinician variation in the diagnosis of retinopathy of prematurity using machine learning. Current Eye Research 48, 60-69.

Rubio, M., Hernández, C. S., Seco, E., Perez-Merino, P., Casares, I., Dave, S. R., Lim, D., Durr, N. J., and Lage, E. (2019). Validation of an affordable handheld wavefront autorefractor. Optometry and Vision Science 96, 726-732.

Samanta, A., Shetty, A., and Nelson, P. C. (2022). Better one or two? A systematic review of portable automated refractors. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 28, 404-411.

Wilson, L. B., Melia, M., Kraker, R. T., VanderVeen, D. K., Hutchinson, A. K., Pineles, S. L., Galvin, J. A., and Lambert, S. R. (2020). Accuracy of autorefraction in children: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 127, 1259-1267.