Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Ophthalmology 8/2019

01-08-2019 | Original Paper

Comparison of the PlusOptix S09 and Spot Vision photorefractor to cycloretinoscopy

Authors: Funda Dikkaya, Sevil Karaman Erdur

Published in: International Ophthalmology | Issue 8/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare refraction measurements for children with the PlusOptix S09 and Spot Vision with cycloplegic retinoscopy.

Methods

One hundred thirty-six eyes of 68 children (26 boys and 42 girls) were evaluated prospectively. The subjects were separated into two groups. Group 1 comprised the subjects age between 5 and 9 years. Group 2 comprised the subjects age between 10 and 18 years. Photorefraction with PlusOptix S09, photorefraction with Spot Vision and cycloplegic retinoscopy were performed in each patient. Spherical equivalents, spherical power, cylindrical power and axis values were compared between three methods.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 7.12 ± 1.5 years in group 1 and 12.24 ± 1.8 years in group 2. Spherical equivalent and spherical power measured with PlusOptix S09 were statistically smaller than measured with cycloplegic retinoscopy for group 1 (p = 0.001, p = 0.001) and for group 2 (p = 0.000, p = 0.000). The mean cylindrical power measured with PlusOptix S09 was not statistically different compared to cycloplegic retinoscopy for both groups (p = 0.314, p = 0.05). Spherical equivalents measured with Spot Vision were statistically smaller than measured with cycloplegic retinoscopy for both groups (p = 0.000, p = 0.012). Spherical power measured with Spot Vision was statistically smaller than measured with cycloplegic retinoscopy for group 1 (p = 0.000), but the difference was not statistically significant for group 2 (p = 0.084). The mean cylindrical power measured with Spot Vision was statistically higher than cycloplegic retinoscopy for both groups (p = 0.000, p = 0.012).

Conclusions

PlusOptix S09 and Spot Vision devices give acceptable results for screening, but prescription of spectacles should not be made according to PlusOptix S09 or Spot Vision devices alone.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Simons K (2005) Amblyopia characterization, treatment, and prophylaxis. Surv Ophthalmol 50:123–166CrossRefPubMed Simons K (2005) Amblyopia characterization, treatment, and prophylaxis. Surv Ophthalmol 50:123–166CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Donahue SP, Arnold RW, Ruben JB et al (2003) Preschool vision screening: what should we be detecting and how should we report it? Uniform guidelines for reporting results of preschool vision screening studies. J Am Assoc Pediatric Ophthalmol Strabismus 7:314–316CrossRef Donahue SP, Arnold RW, Ruben JB et al (2003) Preschool vision screening: what should we be detecting and how should we report it? Uniform guidelines for reporting results of preschool vision screening studies. J Am Assoc Pediatric Ophthalmol Strabismus 7:314–316CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator G (2003) The course of moderate amblyopia treated with atropine in children: experience of the amblyopia treatment study. Am J Ophthalmol 136:630–639CrossRef Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator G (2003) The course of moderate amblyopia treated with atropine in children: experience of the amblyopia treatment study. Am J Ophthalmol 136:630–639CrossRef
4.
go back to reference American Academy of Ophthalmology Pediatric Ophthalmology/Strabismus Panel (2012) Preferred practice pattern guidelines: pediatric eye evaluations. American Academy of Ophthalmology, San Francisco American Academy of Ophthalmology Pediatric Ophthalmology/Strabismus Panel (2012) Preferred practice pattern guidelines: pediatric eye evaluations. American Academy of Ophthalmology, San Francisco
5.
go back to reference Peterseim MM, Papa CE, Wilson ME et al (2014) The effectiveness of the Spot Vision Screener in detecting amblyopia risk factors. J Am Assoc Pediatric Ophthalmol Strabismus 18:539–542CrossRef Peterseim MM, Papa CE, Wilson ME et al (2014) The effectiveness of the Spot Vision Screener in detecting amblyopia risk factors. J Am Assoc Pediatric Ophthalmol Strabismus 18:539–542CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Peterseim MM, Papa CE, Wilson ME et al (2014) Photoscreeners in the pediatric eye office: compared testability and refractions on high-risk children. Am J Ophthalmol 158:932–938CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Peterseim MM, Papa CE, Wilson ME et al (2014) Photoscreeners in the pediatric eye office: compared testability and refractions on high-risk children. Am J Ophthalmol 158:932–938CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Garry GA, Donahue SP (2014) Validation of Spot screening device for amblyopia risk factors. J Am Assoc Pediatric Ophthalmol Strabismus 18:476–480CrossRef Garry GA, Donahue SP (2014) Validation of Spot screening device for amblyopia risk factors. J Am Assoc Pediatric Ophthalmol Strabismus 18:476–480CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Rajavi Z, Sabbaghi H, Baghini AS et al (2015) Accuracy and repeatability of refractive error measurements by photorefractometry. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 10:221–228CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Rajavi Z, Sabbaghi H, Baghini AS et al (2015) Accuracy and repeatability of refractive error measurements by photorefractometry. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 10:221–228CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Silbert DI, Matta NS (2014) Performance of the Spot vision screener for the detection of amblyopia risk factors in children. J Am Assoc Pediatric Ophthalmol Strabismus 18:169–172CrossRef Silbert DI, Matta NS (2014) Performance of the Spot vision screener for the detection of amblyopia risk factors in children. J Am Assoc Pediatric Ophthalmol Strabismus 18:169–172CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Erdurmus M, Yagci R, Karadag R et al (2007) A comparison of photorefraction and retinoscopy in children. J Am Assoc Pediatric Ophthalmol Strabismus 11(6):606–611CrossRef Erdurmus M, Yagci R, Karadag R et al (2007) A comparison of photorefraction and retinoscopy in children. J Am Assoc Pediatric Ophthalmol Strabismus 11(6):606–611CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Demirci G, Arslan B, Özsütçü M et al (2014) Comparison of photorefraction, autorefractometry and retinoscopy in children. Int Ophthalmol 34:739–746CrossRefPubMed Demirci G, Arslan B, Özsütçü M et al (2014) Comparison of photorefraction, autorefractometry and retinoscopy in children. Int Ophthalmol 34:739–746CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Mirzajani A, Heirani M, Jafarzadehpur E et al (2013) A comparison of the Plusoptix S08 photorefractor to retinoscopy and cycloretinoscopy. Clin Exp Optom 96:394–399CrossRefPubMed Mirzajani A, Heirani M, Jafarzadehpur E et al (2013) A comparison of the Plusoptix S08 photorefractor to retinoscopy and cycloretinoscopy. Clin Exp Optom 96:394–399CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Fogel-Levin M, Doron R, Wygnanski-Jaffe T et al (2016) A comparison of plusoptiX A12 measurements with cycloplegic refraction. J Am Assoc Pediatric Ophthalmol Strabismus 20:310–314CrossRef Fogel-Levin M, Doron R, Wygnanski-Jaffe T et al (2016) A comparison of plusoptiX A12 measurements with cycloplegic refraction. J Am Assoc Pediatric Ophthalmol Strabismus 20:310–314CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparison of the PlusOptix S09 and Spot Vision photorefractor to cycloretinoscopy
Authors
Funda Dikkaya
Sevil Karaman Erdur
Publication date
01-08-2019
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
International Ophthalmology / Issue 8/2019
Print ISSN: 0165-5701
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2630
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-018-1026-8

Other articles of this Issue 8/2019

International Ophthalmology 8/2019 Go to the issue