Abstract
Background
Photorefraction can be carried out in both eyes simultaneously from a distance and is therefore suitable for examination of children. This study evaluated the accuracy of a commercially available photorefractometer (PowerRefractor, Plusoptix, Erlangen, Germany) and investigated whether the working distance relaxes the accommodation sufficiently without cycloplegia.
Methods
Photorefractometer readings were compared to cycloplegic retinoscopy. Because of the limited working range the group of patients consisted of low and moderate ametropic eyes within a spherical power of −7.0 to +5.0 D. One hundred and ninety-two eyes from 104 patients (2–81 years) were photorefracted under cycloplegia. A subgroup of 83 eyes from 46 patients was additionally refracted without cycloplegia.
Results
Under cycloplegia, the PowerRefractor measured the spherical equivalent slightly below that of cycloplegic retinoscopy (too much minus). The mean difference in spherical equivalent was −0.12±0.91 D (SD). The mean difference of cylindrical power was −0.17±0.73 D. The mean weighted axis difference was 0.61±0.71 D which is comparable to an axis deviation of 18° at a cylinder power of 1.00 D. Without cycloplegia, the mean difference of the spherical equivalent was −0.73±1.25 D. The mean difference of cylindrical power was −0.20±0.65 D. The mean weighted axis difference was 0.44±0.58 D which is comparable to an axis deviation of 13° at a cylinder power of 1.00 D.
Conclusions
Without cycloplegia, the spherical equivalent of the PowerRefractor tends to be underestimated due to uncontrolled accommodation, especially in children. Cycloplegia improves the accuracy in evaluating the spherical equivalent, but decreases the accuracy of cylinder power and axis.
References
Althaus K, Bischoff P (1994) Videorefraktionsmessung im ersten Lebensjahr. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 205:133–137
Atkinson J, Braddick OJ, Bobier B, Anker S, Ehrlich D, King J, Watson P, Moore A (1996) Two infant vision screening programmes: prediction and prevention of strabismus and amblyopia from photo- and videorefractive screening. Eye 10:189–198
Bobier WR, Braddick OJ (1985) Eccentric photorefraction: optical analysis and empirical measures. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 62:614–620
Bobier WR, Campbell MCW, McCreary CR, Power AM, Yang KC (1992) Geometrical optical analysis of photorefractive methods. Ophthal Physiol Opt 12:147–152
Choi M, Weiss S, Schaeffel F, Seidemann A, Howland HC, Wilhelm B, Wilhelm H (2000) Laboratory, clinical, and kindergarten test of a new eccentric infrared photorefractor (PowerRefractor). Optom Vis Sci 77:537–548
Cronje S, Harris WF (1997) Short-term keratometric variation in the human eye. Optom Vis Sci 74:420–424
Grimm W (1981) Automatische objective Refraktionsbestimmung. DOZ 37:23–34
Hodi S, Wood ICJ (1994) Comparison of the techniques of videorefraction and static retinoscopy in the measurement of refractive error in infants. Ophthal Physiol Opt 14:20–24
Howland HC, Howland B (1974) Photorefraction: a technique for study of refractive state at a distance. J Opt Soc Am 64:240–249
Howland HC (1985) Optics of photoretinoscopy: results from ray tracing. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 62:621–625
Hsu-Winges C, Hamer RD, Norcia AM, Wesemann H, Chan C (1989) Polaroid photorefractive screening of infants. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 26:254–260
McBrien NA, Millodot M (1987) The relationship between clinically measured tonic accommodation and refractive error. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 28:997–1004
Mohindra I (1975) A technique for infant vision examination. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 52:867–870
Owens DA, Mohindra I, Held R (1980) The effectiveness of a retinoscope beam as an accommodative stimulus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 19:942–949
Raasch TW, Schechtman KB, Davis LJ, Zadnik K (2001) Repeatability of subjective refraction in myopic and keratoconic subjects; results of vector analysis; CLEK Study Group. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 21:376–383
Rassow B, Wesemann W (1984) Automatic infrared refractors–1984b. Ophthalmology 91(suppl):10–26
Rosenfield M (1989) Evaluation of clinical techniques to measure tonic accommodation. Optom Vis Sci 66:809–814
Rosenfield M, Chiu NN (1995) Repeatability of subjective and objective refraction. Optom Vis Sci 72:577–579
Schimitzek T, Krzizok T (2001) Messungenauigkeit der Videorefraktometrie bei höheren Ametropien. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 218:438–444
Schimitzek T, Wesemann W (2002) Clinical evaluation of refraction using handheld wavefront autorefractor in young and adult patients. J Cataract Refract Surg 28:1655–1666
Schimitzek T, Haase W (2002) Efficiency of a video-autorefractometer used as a screening device for amblyogenic factors. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 240:710–716
Thompson A, Li T, Peck LB, Howland HC, Counts R, Bobier WR (1996) accuracy and precision of the Tomey ViVA infrared photorefractor. Optom Vis Sci 73:644–652
Twelker JD, Mutti DO (2001) Retinoscopy in infants using a near noncycloplegic technique, cycloplegia with tropicamide 1%, and cycloplegia with cyclopentolate 1%. Optom Vis Sci 78:215–222
Wesemann W, Rassow B (1987) Automatic infrared refractors—a comparative study. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 64:627–638
Wesemann W, Norcia AM, Allen D (1991) Theory of eccentric photorefraction (photoretinoscopy): astigmatic eyes. J Opt Soc Am 8:2038–2047
Wesemann W, Wesemann H (1994) Photorefraction—an objective refraction technique for small children. In: Schulz E (ed) Symposium (to honor Professor Dr. Wolfgang Haase on his 60th birthday) on visual development and “update” in strabismus. Strabismus 2:147–168
Wesemann W, Dick B (2000) Accuracy and accommodation capability of a handheld autorefractor. J Cataract Refract Surg 26:62–70
Acknowledgements
The authors have no financial interest in any of the products mentioned in the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schimitzek, T., Lagrèze, W.A. Accuracy of a new photorefractometer in young and adult patients. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 243, 637–645 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-004-1056-y
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-004-1056-y