Accuracy of Concave Sleeve in Comparison with Plano Sleeve While Doing Retinoscopy

Mahnoor; Zaryab Khan; Muhammad Farhan; Adan Imtiaz; Laiba Usman; Aaima Batool

doi:10.55735/sb9bs234

Authors

Mahnoor Al Khair Welfare Trust, Lahore, Pakistan
Zaryab Khan Eagle Eyes Relief Trust, Lahore, Pakistan https://orcid.org/0009-0009-6772-1957
Muhammad Farhan King Edward Medical University, Lahore, Pakistan
Adan Imtiaz Uni Optical, Vehari, Pakistan
Laiba Usman Al Khidmat Teaching Mansoorah Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan
Aaima Batool Al Ehsan Welfare Eye Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55735/sb9bs234

Keywords:

Concave sleeve , Plano Sleeve , Refractive error , Retinoscopy , Subjective refraction

Abstract

Background: One of the main reasons for a reduction in visual acuity is refractive error. It can either be determined by using different devices or by placing corrective lenses in front of the eye and asking questions. Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of the concave sleeve in comparison with the plano sleeve while performing retinoscopy. Methodology: This was a cross-sectional comparative study in which 43 patients visiting Mayo Hospital for ocular examination were recruited. Patients above 15 years of either sex were included. Patients with any other external ocular disease were excluded from the study. Data was collected by using a self-designed proforma which included information about patient profile, previous ocular history, type of refractive error, and concave sleeve reading and plano sleeve reading of retinoscopy. College of Ophthalmology and Allied Vision Sciences, Lahore. The study was conducted from September to December 2021. All the data was entered and analysed by using the statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS version 25.00). Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative data, such as standard deviation and mean. Interclass correlation was applied to compare both groups. Paired sample T-test was applied for the mean value. Retinoscopy with plano and concave sleeves was performed in each individual. Results of both techniques were analysed by the interclass correlation method. Plano sleeve retinoscopy was performed first in a dark room, and a distance target was given to the patient. After performing plano sleeve retinoscopy, concave sleeve retinoscopy was performed. The final prescription was adjusted by subtracting the working distance of 1.5D. Results: Results were taken from a self-designed proforma using the Interclass Correlation method. Interclass correlation value of spherical equivalent of concave and plano sleeve was strong and positive (ICC = 0.863). Concave and Plano sleeve of retinoscopy were performed in each individual. There was no significant difference between the accuracy of the two sleeves. (p-value=0.26). Conclusion: Concave sleeve and plano sleeve have the same accuracy in measuring refractive error with retinoscopy, and there is no significant difference between the accuracy of both sleeves.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. McCarty CA. Uncorrected refractive error. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2006; 90(5): 521–2.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2006.090233 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2006.090233

2. Williams KM, Verhoeven VJ, Cumberland P, et al. Prevalence of refractive error in Europe: the European eye epidemiology (E(3)) consortium. Europeon Journal of Epidemiol 2015; 30(4): 305–15.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-015-0010-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-015-0010-0

3. Jeganathan VSE, Robin AL, Woodward MA. Refractive error in underserved adults: causes and potential solutions. Current Opinion in Ophthalmology 2017; 28(4): 299-304.

https://doi.org/10.1097/ICU.0000000000000376 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ICU.0000000000000376

4. Otero C, Aldaba M, Pujol J. Clinical evaluation of an automated subjective refraction method implemented in a computer-controlled motorized phoropter. Journal of Optometry 2019; 12(2): 74–83.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2018.09.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2018.09.001

5. Hashemi H, Khabazkhoob M, Asharlous A, Yekta A, Emamian MH, Fotouhi A. Overestimation of hyperopia with autorefraction compared with retinoscopy under cycloplegia in school-age children. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2018; 102(12): 1717–22.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311594 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311594

6. Williams T, Morgan LA, High R, Suh DW. Critical assessment of an ocular photoscreener. Journal of Pediatric Ophthalmology & Strabismus 2018; 55(3): 194–199.

https://doi.org/10.3928/01913913-20170703-18 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3928/01913913-20170703-18

7. Bharadwaj SR, Malavita M, Jayaraj J. A psychophysical technique for estimating the accuracy and precision of retinoscopy. Clinical and Experimental Optometry 2014; 97(2): 164–70.

https://doi.org/10.1111/cxo.12112 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cxo.12112

8. Wajuihian SO, Hansraj R. Accommodative anomalies in a sample of black high school students in South Africa. Ophthalmic Epidemiology 2016; 23(5): 316–23.

https://doi.org/10.3109/09286586.2016.1155715 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/09286586.2016.1155715

9. Aflaki P, Hannuksela MM, Gabbouj M. Subjective quality assessment of asymmetric stereoscopic 3D video. Signal, Image and Video Processing 2015; 9(2): 331–45.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11760-013-0439-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11760-013-0439-0

10. Riau AK, Angunawela RI, Chaurasia SS, et al. Early corneal wound healing and inflammatory responses after refractive lenticule extraction (ReLEx). Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 2011; 52(9): 6213–21.

https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.11-7439 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.11-7439

11. Almoqbel F, Leat SJ, Irving E. The technique, validity and clinical use of the sweep VEP. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 2008; 28(5): 393–403.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2008.00591.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2008.00591.x

12. Venkataraman AP, Sirak D, Brautaset R, Dominguez-Vicent A. Evaluation of the Performance of Algorithm-Based Methods for Subjective Refraction. Journal of Clinical Medicine 2020; 9(10): 3144.

https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9103144 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9103144

13. Rajabpour M, Kangari H, Pesudovs K, et al. Refractive error and vision related quality of life. BMC Ophthalmol 2024; 24(1): 83.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-024-03350-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-024-03350-8

14. Hughes RP, Vincent SJ, Read SA, Collins MJ. Higher order aberrations, refractive error development and myopia control: a review. Clinical and Experimental Optometry 2020; 103(1): 68–85.

https://doi.org/10.1111/cxo.12960 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cxo.12960

15. Wojciechowski R. Nature and nurture: the complex genetics of myopia and refractive error. Clinical Genetics 2011; 79(4): 301–20.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-0004.2010.01592.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-0004.2010.01592.x

16. Mukash SN, Kayembe DL, Mwanza J-C. Agreement Between Retinoscopy, Autorefractometry and Subjective Refraction for Determining Refractive Errors in Congolese Children. Clinical Optometry 2021; 13: 129-136.

https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTO.S303286 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTO.S303286

17. Moghaddam AA, Kargozar A, Zarei-Ghanavati M, et al. Screening for amblyopia risk factors in pre-verbal children using the Plusoptix photoscreener: a cross-sectional population-based study. British Journal of Ophthalmol 2012; 96(1): 83-6.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2010.190405. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2010.190405

18. Zerf M, Besultan H, Hamek B. Influence of the body composition on athletic or specific agility in goalkeeper associated with its post-game specificity. European Journal of Human Movement 2017; 38: 133–44.

19. Al-Mahrouqi H, Oraba SB, Al-Habsi S, et al. Retinoscopy as a Screening Tool for Keratoconus. Cornea 2019; 38(4): 442–5.

https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000001843 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000001843

20. Tyedmers M, Roper-Hall G. The harms tangent screen test. American Orthoptic Journal 2006; 56(1): 175–9.

https://doi.org/10.3368/aoj.56.1.175 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3368/aoj.56.1.175

21. Alrajhi LS, Bokhary KA, Al-Saleh AA. Measurement of anterior segment parameters in Saudi adults with myopia. Saudi Journal of Ophthalmology 2018; 32(3): 194–9.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjopt.2018.04.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjopt.2018.04.007

22. Mutti DO. Sources of normal and anomalous motion in retinoscopy. Optometry and Vision Science 2004; 81(9): 663–72.

https://doi.org/10.1097/01.opx.0000144744.34976.14 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.opx.0000144744.34976.14