Spectacle measurements versus contact lens measurements of the angle of deviation in myopic patients with strabismus

D. Hassanein, Ahmed Awadein, Aya Youssef, Gihan Shokier
{"title":"Spectacle measurements versus contact lens measurements of the angle of deviation in myopic patients with strabismus","authors":"D. Hassanein, Ahmed Awadein, Aya Youssef, Gihan Shokier","doi":"10.4103/ejos.ejos_82_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose To compare the measurements of the angle of deviation through spectacles versus contact lenses and with the theoretically calculated angle. Patients and methods A total of 20 patients with comitant strabismus, more than 20 PD with spectacles, associated with bilateral myopia (spherical equivalent >1 D in both eyes) were included. Angle of deviation was measured using prism and cover test with spectacles and with contact lenses fitted according to the cycloplegic refraction and refined by subjective refraction. Agreements between the measurements obtained with contact lenses and those obtained with spectacles as well as the theoretically calculated angle were analyzed. Results The mean age was 15.6±10.9 years. Average spherical equivalent was −9.1±4.2 D. Measurements obtained with contact lenses were significantly lower than those with spectacles (P<0.001) with coefficient of variation of 27.7%, indicating poor agreement of both measurements. Limits of agreement in Bland–Altman plots were more than 9 PD ([INLINE:1] ± 2 s, −8.8 to 6 PD). The agreement was lower with larger angles. Measurements obtained with contact lenses were significantly lower than theoretical angles (P=0.002) but coefficient of variation between both measurements was 8.8%, indicating good agreement of measurements. There was little systematic or proportionate bias between the contact lens measurements and the theoretical angle. Conclusions Contact lens measurements were significantly lower than spectacle measurements in myopic patients. The contact lens measurements were in good agreement with the theoretically calculated angle. This overestimation of the angle with spectacles might be responsible for overcorrection of myopic patients with exotropia after surgery.","PeriodicalId":31572,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Egyptian Ophthalmological Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Egyptian Ophthalmological Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ejos.ejos_82_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose To compare the measurements of the angle of deviation through spectacles versus contact lenses and with the theoretically calculated angle. Patients and methods A total of 20 patients with comitant strabismus, more than 20 PD with spectacles, associated with bilateral myopia (spherical equivalent >1 D in both eyes) were included. Angle of deviation was measured using prism and cover test with spectacles and with contact lenses fitted according to the cycloplegic refraction and refined by subjective refraction. Agreements between the measurements obtained with contact lenses and those obtained with spectacles as well as the theoretically calculated angle were analyzed. Results The mean age was 15.6±10.9 years. Average spherical equivalent was −9.1±4.2 D. Measurements obtained with contact lenses were significantly lower than those with spectacles (P<0.001) with coefficient of variation of 27.7%, indicating poor agreement of both measurements. Limits of agreement in Bland–Altman plots were more than 9 PD ([INLINE:1] ± 2 s, −8.8 to 6 PD). The agreement was lower with larger angles. Measurements obtained with contact lenses were significantly lower than theoretical angles (P=0.002) but coefficient of variation between both measurements was 8.8%, indicating good agreement of measurements. There was little systematic or proportionate bias between the contact lens measurements and the theoretical angle. Conclusions Contact lens measurements were significantly lower than spectacle measurements in myopic patients. The contact lens measurements were in good agreement with the theoretically calculated angle. This overestimation of the angle with spectacles might be responsible for overcorrection of myopic patients with exotropia after surgery.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
近视斜视患者的眼镜测量与隐形眼镜测量偏差角的比较
目的比较通过眼镜和隐形眼镜测量的偏转角,并与理论计算的偏转角进行比较。患者和方法共纳入20例共同性斜视患者,20例戴眼镜的PD以上,伴有双侧近视(双眼球面当量>1D)。使用棱镜和遮盖物测试测量偏转角,眼镜和隐形眼镜根据睫状肌屈光度安装,并通过主观屈光度进行细化。分析了用隐形眼镜获得的测量结果与用眼镜获得的结果之间的一致性以及理论计算的角度。结果平均年龄15.6±10.9岁。平均球面当量为−9.1±4.2 D。使用隐形眼镜获得的测量值显著低于使用眼镜获得的值(P<0.001),变异系数为27.7%,表明两种测量值的一致性较差。Bland–Altman地块的一致性限制超过9 PD([INLINE:1] ± 2. s、 −8.8至6 PD)。角度越大,协议越低。用隐形眼镜获得的测量值明显低于理论角度(P=0.002),但两种测量值之间的变异系数为8.8%,表明测量值一致性良好。隐形眼镜的测量值和理论角度之间几乎没有系统或成比例的偏差。结论近视患者的隐形眼镜测量值明显低于眼镜测量值。隐形眼镜的测量值与理论计算的角度非常一致。这种对眼镜角度的高估可能是近视外斜视患者术后矫正过度的原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊最新文献
Early versus late initiation of infliximab for refractory uveitis in a cohort of Egyptian BD patients Evaluation of macular vessel density among patients with glaucoma, ocular hypertension, and normal participants “A study of knowledge, attitude and practice patterns regarding eye donation, eye banking and corneal transplantation in tertiary care hospital” Impact of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to peribulbar anesthesia on the retinal vasculature in glaucoma patients: an optical coherence tomography angiography study Changes in peripapillary and macular vasculature measured by optical coherence tomography angiography and their clinical correlation in patients with optic neuritis due to multiple sclerosis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1