PURPOSE: To analyze the response of normal emmetropic subjects to different ocular dominance tests and to analyze the influence of this response in surgically induced monovision. DESIGN: A prospective study of diagnostic accuracy was carried out to analyze the different tests to determine ocular dominance, without a gold standard test. METHODS: Nine different tests were carried out in a group of 51 emmetropic subjects to determine both motor and sensory ocular dominance. For analysis, patients were divided into two groups according to age. Normal ophthalmologic examination results were the inclusion requirement, with normal binocular vision and good stereoacuity. RESULTS: A significant percentage of uncertain or ambiguous results in all tests performed was found, except in the hole-in-card and kaleidoscope tests. When the tests were compared, two by two, the correlation or equivalence found was low and was much lower if tests were compared three by three. CONCLUSIONS: No clear ocular dominance was found in most studied subjects; instead, there must be a constant alternating balance between both eyes in most emmetropic persons, but not in those with pathologic features. This fact would explain the great variability both between and within different kinds of tests. Also, it would establish that the monovision technique is well tolerated in most patients, with unsuccessful results only in those patients with strong or clear dominance. Consequently, it seems appropriate to evaluate patient's dominance before monovision surgery to exclude those individuals with clear dominance.
PURPOSE: To analyze the response of normal emmetropic subjects to different ocular dominance tests and to analyze the influence of this response in surgically induced monovision. DESIGN: A prospective study of diagnostic accuracy was carried out to analyze the different tests to determine ocular dominance, without a gold standard test. METHODS: Nine different tests were carried out in a group of 51 emmetropic subjects to determine both motor and sensory ocular dominance. For analysis, patients were divided into two groups according to age. Normal ophthalmologic examination results were the inclusion requirement, with normal binocular vision and good stereoacuity. RESULTS: A significant percentage of uncertain or ambiguous results in all tests performed was found, except in the hole-in-card and kaleidoscope tests. When the tests were compared, two by two, the correlation or equivalence found was low and was much lower if tests were compared three by three. CONCLUSIONS: No clear ocular dominance was found in most studied subjects; instead, there must be a constant alternating balance between both eyes in most emmetropic persons, but not in those with pathologic features. This fact would explain the great variability both between and within different kinds of tests. Also, it would establish that the monovision technique is well tolerated in most patients, with unsuccessful results only in those patients with strong or clear dominance. Consequently, it seems appropriate to evaluate patient's dominance before monovision surgery to exclude those individuals with clear dominance.