Refractive outcomes of table-mounted and hand-held auto-refractometers
, 2, 2
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the concordance of measurements between a table-mounted automatic auto-refractor and a portable manual auto-refractor, test the variability of inter-operator measurements, and determine the effect of the head’s position on the measurements.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective study was carried out on 100 healthy eyes. Refraction was acquired with a Topcon RM-800 tabletop auto-refractometer and a Nidek HandyRef K portable auto-refractometer. The refractive errors were compared in terms of the sphere’s power, the cylinder and its axis, the spherical equivalent, and the coordinates of the astigmatism power vectors J0 and J45. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software version 20.
RESULTS: The average age was 31, with 3 and 71 years old extremes. Fifty-six patients were female (56%), and 52% were right eyes. No difference between the 2 devices concerning the sphere (p = 0.09), the cylinder (p = 0.18), and the spherical equivalent (p = 0.15) was observed. However, there is an average difference of 4° in the astigmatism axis (p ≤ 0.001), which is insignificant if we consider the Jackson power vector J0 (p = 0.24) and J45 (p = 0.85). The position of the head tilted back does not modify the measurements with the portable refractometer. In addition, the HandyRef can be used by any unqualified person with no risk of altering the results of the measurements.
CONCLUSION: Our results show a good concordance between the measurements obtained by the two devices. They can therefore be used interchangeably.
Keywords: table-mounted autorefractorhandheld autorefractorspherecylinderspherical equivalentastigmatismJackson vector
References
- Akil H, Keskin S, Çavdarli C. Comparison of the refractive measurements with hand-held autorefractometer, table-mounted autorefractometer and cycloplegic retinoscopy in children. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2015; 29(3): 178–184.
- Sayed KM, Alsmman AH, Mostafa EM. Hand-Held Nidek versus Table-Mounted Huvitz Autorefractors and Their Agreement with Subjective Refraction in Adults. Clin Ophthalmol. 2021; 15: 1391–1401.
- Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999; 8(2): 135–160.
- Bland JM, Altman D. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 327(8476): 307–310.
- 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(6): 367–375.
- Naeser K. Assessment and statistics of surgically induced astigmatism. Acta Ophthalmol. 2008; 86 Suppl 1: 5–28.
- Seymen z, Bekmez S, Eris E, et al. Comparison of Refractive Disorders in Adulthood Measured by Using HandyRef-K, Retinomax, PlusOptix and Table Top Autorefractometer. Beyoglu Eye J. 2021; 6(2): 108–114.
- Mirzajani A, Qasemi F, Asharlous A, et al. Are the results of handheld auto-refractometer as valid as the result of table-mounted refractometer? J Curr Ophthalmol. 2019; 31(3): 305–311.
- Arici C, Turk A, Keskin S, et al. Effect of cycloplegia on refractive errors measured with three different refractometers in school-age children. Turk J Med Sci. 2012; 42(4): 657–665.
- 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(4): 422–426.
- Wesemann W, Dick B. Accuracy and accommodation capability of a handheld autorefractor. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000; 26(1): 62–70.
- Lehnert R, Müller M, Liekfeld A. [Supine cyclotorsion and asphericity]. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2007, 224(8):664-669.; 224(8): 664–669.
- Smith EM, Talamo JH. Cyclotorsion in the seated and supine patient. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1995; 21(4): 402–403.