Kristina Tarczy-Hornoch1. 1. Division of Ophthalmology, Childrens Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90027, USA. ktarczyhornoch@chla.usc.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe a modified bell retinoscopy (MBR) method for quantifying accommodative lag in children and to assess its repeatability and comparability with other techniques. METHODS: In MBR, the target is advanced toward the patient until the retinoscopic reflex is neutralized. A "standardized 40-cm target estimate" of lag was derived for each child using data from three retinoscope distances. Within-visit repeatability was assessed in normal children 5 to 23 months of age, a heterogeneous group of clinic patients, and a group of children with Down syndrome. Clinic patients were tested on separate days for between-visit repeatability and, also, with Nott retinoscopy (NR) and the monocular estimate method (MEM) on day 2. RESULTS: MBR correlated with NR (r = 0.84) and MEM (r = 0.82). MBR and NR estimates were lower than MEM for high lags. Within-visit repeatability of the standardized 40-cm target estimate of MBR in normal children and clinic patients varied with the amount of lag (p < 0.0001). The repeatability index for 0.50 D lag was 0.49 D and for 1.00 D lag it was 0.80 D. Repeatability was similar in children with Down syndrome. In clinic patients, the between-visit repeatability index for 0.50 D lag was 0.60 D for the second estimate of each day, with lower repeatability for the first measure of each day. Repeatability did not vary with age or refractive error. The decrease in repeatability with high lag may be attributable to spatial measurement error. CONCLUSIONS: MBR estimates of accommodative lag correlate with traditional dynamic retinoscopy measures over a wide range of lags and show comparable repeatability. MBR may be a useful addition to the repertoire of clinical tools available for assessing accommodation in young children.
PURPOSE: To describe a modified bell retinoscopy (MBR) method for quantifying accommodative lag in children and to assess its repeatability and comparability with other techniques. METHODS: In MBR, the target is advanced toward the patient until the retinoscopic reflex is neutralized. A "standardized 40-cm target estimate" of lag was derived for each child using data from three retinoscope distances. Within-visit repeatability was assessed in normal children 5 to 23 months of age, a heterogeneous group of clinic patients, and a group of children with Down syndrome. Clinic patients were tested on separate days for between-visit repeatability and, also, with Nott retinoscopy (NR) and the monocular estimate method (MEM) on day 2. RESULTS: MBR correlated with NR (r = 0.84) and MEM (r = 0.82). MBR and NR estimates were lower than MEM for high lags. Within-visit repeatability of the standardized 40-cm target estimate of MBR in normal children and clinic patients varied with the amount of lag (p < 0.0001). The repeatability index for 0.50 D lag was 0.49 D and for 1.00 D lag it was 0.80 D. Repeatability was similar in children with Down syndrome. In clinic patients, the between-visit repeatability index for 0.50 D lag was 0.60 D for the second estimate of each day, with lower repeatability for the first measure of each day. Repeatability did not vary with age or refractive error. The decrease in repeatability with high lag may be attributable to spatial measurement error. CONCLUSIONS: MBR estimates of accommodative lag correlate with traditional dynamic retinoscopy measures over a wide range of lags and show comparable repeatability. MBR may be a useful addition to the repertoire of clinical tools available for assessing accommodation in young children.