Korean J Ophthalmol.  2015 Jun;29(3):178-184. 10.3341/kjo.2015.29.3.178.

Comparison of the Refractive Measurements with Hand-held Autorefractometer, Table-mounted Autorefractometer and Cycloplegic Retinoscopy in Children

• Akil H
• Keskin S
• Cavdarli C

• KMID: 2363756
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2015.29.3.178

Abstract

PURPOSE
To evaluate the performance of the hand-held and table-top autorefractokeratometer in measuring refractive errors by comparing them with cycloplegic retinoscopy.
METHODS
Included in the study were 112 eyes of 112 pediatric patients whose mean age was 6.78 +/- 2.61 years (range, 2 to 12 years). The refractive errors of all the eyes were measured with and without cycloplegia using a hand held autorefractokeratometer (Retinomax K-plus 3), table top autorefractokeratometer (Canon RK-F1) and performing cycloplegic retinoscopy. The spherical equivalent, cylindrical axis and keratometer values were statistically compared.
RESULTS
The mean spherical equivalent obtained from the Retinomax K-plus 3 was significantly less hyperopic than that of Canon RK-F1 (p = 0.004) before cycloplegia. When the Bland Altman analysis was performed in comparisons of spherical equivalent values measured with the Retinomax K-plus 3, Canon RK-F1 and cycloplegic retinoscopy, it was seen that almost all of the differences between the measurements remained within the range of +/-2 standard deviation. Good agreement was found between Retinomax K-plus 3 and Canon RK-F1 for the Jackson cross-cylinder values at axis 0degrees and 45degrees; keratometer values respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The refractive error components were highly correlated between the two instruments and cycloplegic retinoscopy.

Keyword

Hand-held autorefractokeratometer; Refractive errors; Retinoscopy; Table-top autorefractokeratometer

MeSH Terms

Child
Child, Preschool
Female
Humans
Male
Refractive Errors/*diagnosis
*Retinoscopes
*Retinoscopy
Vision Screening

Reference

1. Tongue AC. Refractive errors in children. Pediatr Clin North Am. 1987; 34:1425–1437.

2. Atkinson J, Braddick O, Robier B, et al. Two infant vision screening programmes: prediction and prevention of strabismus and amblyopia from photo- and videorefractive screening. Eye (Lond). 1996; 10(Pt 2):189–198.

3. Lithander J, Sjostrand J. Anisometropic and strabismic amblyopia in the age group 2 years and above: a prospective study of the results of treatment. Br J Ophthalmol. 1991; 75:111–116.

4. Schmidt P, Maguire M, Dobson V, et al. Comparison of preschool vision screening tests as administered by licensed eye care professionals in the Vision In Preschoolers Study. Ophthalmology. 2004; 111:637–650.

5. Williams C, Lumb R, Harvey I, Sparrow JM. Screening for refractive errors with the Topcon PR2000 Pediatric Refractometer. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000; 41:1031–1037.

6. Thibos LN, Wheeler W, Horner D. Power vectors: an application of Fourier analysis to the description and statistical analysis of refractive error. Optom Vis Sci. 1997; 74:367–375.

7. Sunness JS, El Annan J. Improvement of visual acuity by refraction in a low-vision population. Ophthalmology. 2010; 117:1442–1446.

8. Farook M, Venkatramani J, Gazzard G, et al. Comparisons of the handheld autorefractor, table-mounted autorefractor, and subjective refraction in Singapore adults. Optom Vis Sci. 2005; 82:1066–1070.

9. Vision in Preschoolers Study Group. Preschool vision screening tests administered by nurse screeners compared with lay screeners in the vision in preschoolers study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005; 46:2639–2648.

10. Kallay OP, Cordonnier MJ, Dramaix MM. Cycloplegic refractive errors in children: comparison of a standard and a hand-held refractor. Strabismus. 1998; 6:3–7.

11. Cordonnier M, Dramaix M, Kallay O, de Bideran M. How accurate is the hand-held refractor Retinomax(R) in measuring cycloplegic refraction: a further evaluation. Strabismus. 1998; 6:133–142.

12. Wesemann W, Dick B. Accuracy and accommodation capability of a handheld autorefractor. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000; 26:62–70.

13. Harvey EM, Miller JM, Dobson V, et al. Measurement of refractive error in Native American preschoolers: validity and reproducibility of autorefraction. Optom Vis Sci. 2000; 77:140–149.

14. Cordonnier M, Dramaix M. Screening for abnormal levels of hyperopia in children: a non-cycloplegic method with a hand held refractor. Br J Ophthalmol. 1998; 82:1260–1264.

15. Cordonnier M, Kallay O. Non-cycloplegic screening for refractive errors in children with the hand-held autorefractor Retinomax: final results and comparison with non-cycloplegic photoscreening. Strabismus. 2001; 9:59–70.

16. Rotsos T, Grigoriou D, Kokkolaki A, Manios N. A comparison of manifest refractions, cycloplegic refractions and retinoscopy on the RMA-3000 autorefractometer in children aged 3 to 15 years. Clin Ophthalmol. 2009; 3:429–431.

17. Harvey EM, Miller JM, Wagner LK, Dobson V. Reproducibility and accuracy of measurements with a hand held autorefractor in children. Br J Ophthalmol. 1997; 81:941–948.

18. Prabakaran S, Dirani M, Chia A, et al. Cycloplegic refraction in preschool children: comparisons between the hand-held autorefractor, table-mounted autorefractor and retinoscopy. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2009; 29:422–426.

19. Choong YF, Chen AH, Goh PP. A comparison of autorefraction and subjective refraction with and without cycloplegia in primary school children. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006; 142:68–74.

20. DeCarlo DK, McGwin G Jr, Searcey K, et al. Trial frame refraction versus autorefraction among new patients in a low-vision clinic. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013; 54:19–24.

21. Barry JC, Konig HH. Non-cycloplegic screening for amblyopia via refractive findings with the Nikon Retinomax hand held autorefractor in 3 year old kindergarten children. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001; 85:1179–1182.

22. Wesemann W, Dick B. Experiences with the hand-held autorefractometer "Retinomax" in adults and children. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 1997; 211:387–394.