Search

Jacob David Schaafsma,1 Robert W Arnold2 1School of Medicine, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; 2Alaska Blind Child Discovery, Alaska Children’s EYE & Strabismus, Anchorage, AK, USACorrespondence: Robert W Arnold, Alaska Blind Child Discovery, Alaska Children’s EYE & Strabismus, 3500 Latouche Street &num;280, Anchorage, AK, 99508, USA, Tel +1(907)561-1917, Fax +1(907)563-5373, Email eyedoc@alaska.netBackground: Seeking a quick way to estimate refractions for challenging pediatric patients, we studied two non-contact methods with particular attention to accuracy and level of stress in uncovering cycloplegic hyperopia.Methods: Newly referred and follow-up pediatric eye patients had timed school bus accommodation-relaxing skiascopy (SBARS) and Plusoptix A12 (Px) photoscreener testing before cyclopentolate 1% confirmatory examinations. The ABCD ellipsoid univariate method based on relative blur and vector components was used to compare dry sphero-cylinder refraction estimates with cycloplegic. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine screening value.Results: Three compared refractions were attempted in 191 racially diverse children of whom 100 were age 0.2– 3.9 years and 91 were 4 to 14 years. Plusoptix failed to yield a result in 21 and an additional 21 were interpreted as an excess sphere. Median spherical equivalent did not differ between Px and SBARS for 149 with Px readings but in hyperopic patients, Plusoptix uncovered 27% less hyperopia. The ellipsoid for SBARS of 0.8 was better than 2.4 for Plusoptix (Mann–Whitney p< 0.001). Plusoptix was fastest (3– 15 seconds) followed by SBARS (15– 30 seconds) compared to 30– 45 minutes for cycloplegic exam.Conclusion: Non-contact quick refractive methods enhanced confirmatory cycloplegic pediatric exam in high-risk pediatric patients.Keywords: sphero-cylinder, refraction, autorefraction, photoscreening, developmental delay

Abstract Purpose To evaluate objective and subjective refraction differences in healthy young adults. Methods Data concerning candidates for the Israeli Air Force Flight Academy, as well as active air force pilots in all stages of service who underwent a routine health checkup between the years 2018 and 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Objective refraction measured using a single autorefractometer was compared with subjective refraction measured by an experienced military optometrist during the same visit. The results were converted to power vectors (spherical equivalent [SE], J0, and J45). To interpret astigmatism using power vector values, the cylinder power (Cp) was determined. Results This study included 1,395 young adult participants. The average age was 22.17 years (range, 17–39, 84.8% males). The average SE was − 0.65 ± 1.19 diopter (D) compared with − 0.71 ± 0.91D in the auto- and subjective refraction, respectively (p = 0.001). Cp was 0.91 ± 0.52D and 0.67 ± 0.40D, respectively (p

Purpose: To evaluate objective and subjective refraction differences in healthy young adults. Methods: Data concerning candidates for the Israeli Air Force Flight Academy, as well as active air force pilots in all stages of service who underwent a routine health checkup between the years 2018 and 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Objective refraction measured using a single autorefractometer was compared with subjective refraction measured by an experienced military optometrist during the same visit. The results were converted to power vectors (spherical equivalent [SE], J0, and J45). To interpret astigmatism using power vector values, the cylinder power (Cp) was determined. Results: This study included 1,395 young adult participants. The average age was 22.17 years (range, 17–39, 84.8% males). The average SE was − 0.65 ± 1.19 diopter (D) compared with − 0.71 ± 0.91D in the auto- and subjective refraction, respectively (p = 0.001). Cp was 0.91 ± 0.52D and 0.67 ± 0.40D, respectively (p < 0.001). This difference was more common in older participants (p < 0.001). J0 and J45 value differences were not significant. The absolute SE value of subjective refraction was lower in the myopic (p < 0.001) and hyperopic (p < 0.001) patients. Conclusions: Young hyperopic participants tended to prefer "less plus" in subjective refraction compared with autorefraction. Young myopic participants tended to prefer "less minus" in subjective refraction compared with autorefraction. All participants, but mainly older participants, preferred slightly "less Cp" than that measured using autorefraction; The astigmatic axis did not differ significantly between the methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]