Journals / MN Oftalmoloji / 2020 / Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of Subjective and Objective Amplitude of Accommodation Measurements Using Minus Lens Technique and Autorefractometer

Minus Lens Tekniği ve Otorefraktometre ile Ölçülen Subjektif ve Objektif Akomodasyon Amplitüdü Değerlerinin Karşılaştırılması

Pages
16–21
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The difference between the objective and subjective measurements in this study is similar with those reported in the literature.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study is to compare subjective and objective amplitude of accommodation measurements using minus lens technique and autorefractometer.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Method: Monocular amplitude of accommodation measurements were measured with two techniques in random order on 54 subjects 19-30 years using autorefractometry (objective) and minus lens technique (subjective).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The difference between the objective and subjective measurements in this study is similar with those reported in the literature.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to compare subjective and objective amplitude of accommodation measurements using minus lens technique and autorefractometer. Material and Method: Monocular amplitude of accommodation measurements were measured with two techniques in random order on 54 subjects 19-30 years using autorefractometry (objective) and minus lens technique (subjective). The comparison between the measurements methods was performed using the mean difference, Passing Bablok regression, Bland Altman plot, intraclass correlation coefficient and concordance correlation coefficient. Results: The mean amplitude of accommodation values for the subjects were 8.25±1.22 D in minus lens technique and 5.89±1.47 D in autorefractometry. The difference between the measurements was statistically significant (p <0.001). A strong positive correlation was found between the measurements (p<0.001, r=0.772). Autorefractometry showed good inter-examiner agreement with the minus lens technique. The concordance correlation coefficient between the measurements was 0.298. Also, the Bland–Altman plot suggested that there was a lack of agreement between the measurements of amplitude of accommodation. Conclusion: Objective autorefractometric measurement of accommodation demonstrates that amplitude of accommodation is substantially less than that measured by the subjective minus lens technique. The difference between the objective and subjective measurements in this study is similar with those reported in the literature.

Özet

Giriş: Bu çalışmanın amacı, minus lens tekniği ve otorefraktometre kullanılarak ölçülen subjektif ve objektif akomodasyon amplitüdü ölçüm tekniklerinin karşılaştırılmasıdır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Akomodasyon amplitüdü ölçümleri, 19-30 yaşları arasındaki katılımcılardan randomize olarak seçilerek otorefraktometre (objektif) ve minus lens tekniğiyle (subjektif) monoküler olarak yapıldı. Ölçüm yöntemleri arası karşılaştırma, ortalama farklılık, Passing Bablok regression, Bland Altman plot, sınıflar arası korelasyon katsayısı ve uyum korelasyon katsayısı kullanılarak yapıldı. Bulgular: Ortalama akomodasyon amplitüdü değerleri minus lens tekniğinde 8,25±1,22 D, otorefraktometrede 5,89±1,47 D olarak saptandı. Ölçümler arasındaki fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlıydı (p<0,001). Ölçümler arasında güçlü pozitif bir korelasyon bulundu (p<0,001, r=0,772). Otorefraktometre minus lens tekniğiyle sınıflar arası korelasyon katsayısına göre iyi bir uyum gösterdi. Ölçümler arasındaki uyum korelasyon katsayısı 0,298 idi. Ayrıca Bland-Altman grafiğinde akomodasyon amplitüdü ölçümleri arasında bir uyuşmazlık olduğu görüldü. Sonuç: Akomodasyonun objektif otorefraktometrik ölçümü, akomodasyon amplitüdünün subjektif minus lens tekniğiyle ölçülenlere göre önemli oranda daha düşük olduğunu göstermiştir. Objektif ve subjektif ölçümler arasındaki farkın literatürdeki diğer çalışmalarla benzer olduğu izlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

KÜÇÜK, B., SIRAKAYA, E. (2020). Comparison of Subjective and Objective Amplitude of Accommodation Measurements Using Minus Lens Technique and Autorefractometer. MN Oftalmoloji, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 1, 16–21. https://ajindex.com/articles/295339

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Glasser A, Kaufman PL. The mechanism of accommodation in primates. Ophthalmology. 1999;106(5):863-72
  2. Duane A. Normal values of the accommodation at all ages. J Am Med Assoc. 1912;59(12):1010-3
  3. Schachar RA. Cause and treatment of presbyopia with a method for increasing the amplitude of accommodation. Ann Ophthalmol. 1992;24(12):445-7 4. Tunç Z. Akomodatif Göz İçi Lenslerinde Gelişmeler. T Oftalmol Derg. 2012;42(4):288-93
  4. Mesçi C, Erbil H, Sönmez A, Acar H. Katarakt Operasyonları Sonrası Erken Dönemde Akomodatif Göz İçi Lenslerin Monofokal Göz İçi Lenslerle Görme Fonksiyonları Yönünden Karşılaştırılması. Glo-Kat. 2007;2(1)
  5. Sanders DR, Sanders ML. Visual performance results after Tetraflex accommodating intraocular lens implantation. Ophthalmology. 2007;114(9):1679-84
  6. Dogru M, Honda R, Omoto M, et al. Early visual results with the 1CU accommodating intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31(5):895-902
  7. Wolffsohn JS, Naroo SA, Motwani NK, et al. Subjective and objective performance of the Lenstec KH-3500 “accommodative” intraocular lens. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90(6):693-6
  8. Fukuyama M, Oshika T, Amano S, Yoshitomi F. Relationship between apparent accommodation and corneal multifocality in pseudophakic eyes. Ophthalmology. 1999;106(6):1178-81
  9. Kaufman PL. Scleral expansion surgery for presbyopia. Ophthalmology. 2001;108(12):2161
  10. Momeni-Moghaddam H, Wolffsohn JS, Azimi A, BabaeiMalekkolaei E. Effect of target distance on accommodative amplitude measured using the minus lens technique. Clin Exper Optometr. 2014;97(1):62-5
  11. León AÁ, Medrano SM, Rosenfield M. A comparison of the reliability of dynamic retinoscopy and subjective measurements of amplitude of accommodation. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2012; 32(2):133-41
  12. Nemeth G, Lipecz A, Szalai E, Berta A, Modis Jr L. Accommodation in phakic and pseudophakic eyes measured with subjective and objective methods. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39(10):1534-42
  13. Momeni-Moghaddam H, Kundart J, Askarizadeh F. Comparing measurement techniques of accommodative amplitudes. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2014;62(6):683
  14. Küçük B, Hamamcı M, Aslan Bayhan S, Bayhan HA, İnan LE. Amplitude of Accommodation in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis. Curr Eye Res. 2019;44(11):1271-7
  15. Cumming JS, Slade SG, Chayet A, Group A-S. Clinical evaluation of the model AT-45 silicone accommodating intraocular lens: results of feasibility and the initial phase of a Food and Drug Administration clinical