Comparison of the PlusOptix S09 and Spot Vision photorefractor to cycloretinoscopy


DİKKAYA F., Erdur S. K.

International Ophthalmology, vol.39, no.8, pp.1671-1678, 2019 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 39 Issue: 8
  • Publication Date: 2019
  • Doi Number: 10.1007/s10792-018-1026-8
  • Journal Name: International Ophthalmology
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus
  • Page Numbers: pp.1671-1678
  • Keywords: Amblyopia, Cycloretinoscopy, Photorefraction, PlusOptix S09, Spot Vision
  • Istanbul Medipol University Affiliated: Yes

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.