Journals / Türk Oftalmoloji Dergisi / 2010 / Cilt: 40 - Sayı: 6

Comparison of refractive errors measured by plusoptix S08, potec PRK-6000 and nidek ARK-30 hand-held autorefractometer in school-age children and adult population

Okulçağı çocuk ve erişkin popülasyonda plusoptix S08, potec PRK-6000 ve nidek ARK-30 elde taşınabilir otorefraktometre ile ölçülen refraksiyon kusurlarının karşılaştırılması

Pages
328–332
Publication Date
2022-11-05
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)

Therefore, accommodation can be responsible for inter-device differences.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: To compare the refractive errors measured with Plusoptix S08 photorefractometer, Nidek ARK-30 hand-held autorefractometer and Potec PRK-6000 autorefractometer in school-age children and adult population.Material and Method: Ninety eyes of 45 patients who did not have ocular pathology apart from refractive error were enrolled in the study.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Refractive errors were measured by Potec PRK-6000 autorefractometer, Nidek ARK-30 hand-held autorefractometer and Plusoptix S08 photorefractometer, respectively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Therefore, accommodation can be responsible for inter-device differences.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the refractive errors measured with Plusoptix S08 photorefractometer, Nidek ARK-30 hand-held autorefractometer and Potec PRK-6000 autorefractometer in school-age children and adult population.Material and Method: Ninety eyes of 45 patients who did not have ocular pathology apart from refractive error were enrolled in the study. Refractive errors were measured by Potec PRK-6000 autorefractometer, Nidek ARK-30 hand-held autorefractometer and Plusoptix S08 photorefractometer, respectively. The subjects were separated into two groups: Group 1 (school-age, pediatric) and Group 2 (adult). The measurements of spherical and cylindrical power, cylindrical axis, spherical equivalent and interpupillary distance obtained by the three devices in both groups were statistically compared. Results: The mean age was 9.95±3.14 years in Group 1 (n=21) and 23.46±5.36 in Group 2 (n=24). While the differences in spherical power and spherical equivalent measured by the three devices were found statistically significant in both groups (p0.05). Interpupillary distance measurements obtained by Potec PRK-6000 and Plusoptix S08 showed statistically significant difference in Group 1, whereas the difference was not significant in Group 2. Discussion: The cylindrical power and cylindrical axis measured by the three devices were found to be consistent within the two groups, while spherical power and spherical equivalents were inconsistent in both groups. Accommodation is a factor markedly affecting the spherical refractive measurements in school-age children and young adults. Therefore, accommodation can be responsible for inter-device differences.

Özet

Amaç: Okulçağı çocuklarında ve yetişkinlerde Plusoptix SO8 fotorefraktometre, Nidek ARK-30 elde taşınır otorefraktometre ve Potec PRK-6000 otorefraktometre ile saptanan refraksiyon kusurlarını karşılaştırmak. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmaya refraksiyon kusuru dışında ek bir oküler patoloji bulunmayan 45 hastanın 90 gözü dahil edildi. Refraksiyon kusurları sırasıyla Potec PRK-6000 otorefraktometre, Nidek ARK-30 elde taşınır otorefraktometre ve Plusoptix S08 fotorefraktometre ile ölçüldü. Çalışmadaki olgular okul çağı pediatrik (Grup 1) ve erişkin (Grup 2) olmak üzere iki gruba ayrıldı. Her iki gruptan üç cihazla elde edilen sferik, silindirik, silindirik aks, sferik eşdeğer ve interpupiller mesafe değerleri birbiriyle istatistiksel olarak karşılaştırıldı. Sonuçlar: Olguların ortalama yaşı Grup 1’de (n=21) 9,95±3,14, Grup 2’de (n=24) 23,46±5,36 idi. Her iki grupta da üç cihaz ile elde edilen sferik güç ve sferik eşdeğer değerleri açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık mevcutken (p0,05). Potec PRK-6000 ve Plusoptix S08 ile saptanan interpupiller mesafe değerleri Grup 1’de istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark sergilerken, Grup 2’deki fark anlamlı değildi. Tartışma: İki grupta da üç cihazla elde edilen silindirik güç ve silindirik aks ölçümleri birbirleriyle uyumlu bulunurken, sferik refraksiyon ve sferik eşdeğer değerleri uyumlu bulunmamıştır. Akomodasyon, okulçağı çocukları ve genç erişkinlerdeki sferik refraksiyon ölçümlerinde belirgin şekilde etkili bir faktördür. Bu yüzden cihazlar arasındaki farklılıktan akomodasyon sorumlu tutulabilir

🔖

Cite This Article

CEYLAN, O. M., MUTLU, F. M., ARICI, C., ALTINSOY, H. İ., TÜRK, A. (2022). Comparison of refractive errors measured by plusoptix S08, potec PRK-6000 and nidek ARK-30 hand-held autorefractometer in school-age children and adult population. Türk Oftalmoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 40 - Sayı: 6, 328–332. https://ajindex.com/articles/638437

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Rassow B, Wesemann W. Automatic infrared refractors-1984. Ophthalmology 1984; 91:10-26
  2. Harvey EM, Miller JM, Wagner LK, Dobson V. Reproducibility and accuracy of measurements with a hand held autorefractor in children. Br J of Ophthalmol. 1997;81:941-8
  3. Cordonnier M, Dramaix M. Screening for refractive errors in children: accuracy of the hand held refractor Retinomax to screen for astigmatism. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999;83:157-61
  4. Schimitzek T, Lagreze WA. Accuracy of a new photorefractometer in young and adult patients. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005;243:637-45
  5. Küsbeci T, Yavaş G, Ermiş SS, Şanlı M, İnan ÜÜ, Öztürk F. Okulçağı Çocuklarında Powerrefraktör II (Plusoptix CR03) ile Saptanan Refraksiyon Kusurlarının Topcon Otorefraktometre ile Karşılaştırılması. Turkiye Klinikleri J Ophthalmol. 2007;16:251-6
  6. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307-10
  7. Cobb SR, MacDonal CF. Resolution acuity in astigmats: evidence for a critical period in the human visual system. Br J Physiol Opt. 1978;32:38-49
  8. Mohindra I, Jacobson SG, Held R. Binocular visual form deprivation in human infants. Doc Ophthalmol. 1983;55:237-49
  9. Atkinson J, Braddick O, Wattam-Bell J, et al. The prediction and prevention of strabismus and amblyopia achieved in the Cambridge infant photorefraction screening programme. Ophthal Physiol Opt. 1989;9:467
  10. Ingram RM, Walker C, Wilson JM, Arnold PE, Dally S. Prediction of amblyopia and squint by means of refraction at age 1 year. Br J Ophthalmol. 1986;70:12-5
  11. Abrahamsson M, Fabian G, Sjorstrand J. A longitudinal study of a population based sample of astigmatic children: II. The changeability of anisometropia. Acta Ophthalmol. 1990;68:435-40
  12. Saunders KJ. Early refractive development in humans. Surv Ophthalmol. 1995;40:207-16
  13. Gwiazda J, Schieman M, Mohindra I, Held R. Astigmatism in children: Changes in axis and amount from birth to six years. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1984;25:88-92
  14. Mohindra I, Held R, Gwiazda J, Brill S. Astigmatism in infants. Science. 1978;202:329-31
  15. Howland HC, Sayles N. Photorefractive measurements of astigmatism in infants and young children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1984;25:93-102
  16. Abrahamsson M, Fabian G, Sjorstrand J. Changes in astigmatism between the ages of 1 and 4 years: a longitudinal study. Br J Ophthalmol. 1988;72:145-9
  17. Gekeler F, Schaeffel F, Howland HC, Wattam-B