Posters

Comparison of cycloplegic and noncycloplegic refractions between a hand-held autorefractometer and a conventional autorefractometer

Poster Details

First Author: H.Oguz TURKEY

Co Author(s):    E. Dik   T. Goncu                 

Abstract Details

Purpose:

Measurement of refraction accurately is very important, especially in children for prevention and elimination of amblyopia and asthenopia complaints. Currently many automatic devices are used for this purpose. Desktop autorefractometers are more widely used in clinical evaluation. In addition to this, especially for screening small children in terms of anisometropia and significant refractive error, hand-held, non-invasive, quick devices have been developed. The purpose of this study was to compare the cycloplegic and noncycloplegic measurements obtained by a hand-held autorefractometer with those of autorefractometer.

Setting:

This prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted on consecutive patients who were admitted to the ophthalmology department of Medical Faculty Hospital, Harran University, Sanliurfa, Turkey.

Methods:

The patients underwent a full ophthalmic examination and refractive measurements were assessed by both a hand-held autorefractometer and a conventional autorefractometer. The spherical equivalent (SE) calculated for assessment of refractive error by applying the following formula: SE = spherical refraction + 0.5 x cylindrical refraction. The SE and cylindrical axis was measured and compared.

Results:

A total of 190 eyes were included in the study. The mean noncycloplegic SE for right eye in conventional autorefractometer group was -0,24±1,50D and significantly lower than hand-held autorefractometer group (0,56±1,44 D)(P<0.001). There was no significant difference for cycloplegic SE (P=0.078). Similarly, the mean noncycloplegic SE for left eye in conventional group was -0,25±1,56D and significantly lower than hand-held autorefractometer group (0,62±1,47D)(P<0.001). There was no significant difference for cycloplegic SE (P=0.087). Among 43 patients with astigmatism, for noncycloplegic evaluation 59.3% of patients and for cycloplegic evaluation 58.1% of patients, had an axis compatible in both groups.

Conclusions:

Our study revealed that the cylindrical axis and cycloplegic spherical equivalent values were compatible between two devices however, noncycloplegic spherical equivalent values were not compatible.

Financial Disclosure:

NONE