Michael Mimouni1, Lilach Zoller2, Josefa Horowitz3, Tamara Wygnanski-Jaffe4,5, Yair Morad5,6, Eedy Mezer7,8. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Rambam Health Care Campus, P.O.B. 9602, Haifa, Israel, 31096. m_mimouni@rambam.health.gov.il. 2. Maccabi Health Service, Haifa, Israel. 3. Carmel Medical Center, Haifa, Israel. 4. Goldschleger Eye Institute, Sheba Medical Center, Tel-Hashomer, Israel. 5. Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel. 6. Assaf-Harofeh Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel. 7. Department of Ophthalmology, Rambam Health Care Campus, P.O.B. 9602, Haifa, Israel, 31096. 8. The Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The precise correction of refractive error is especially important in young adults. It is unclear whether cycloplegic refraction is necessary in this age group. The purpose of this study was to compare the non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic spherical equivalent (SE) refractive error measured in young adults. METHODS: This was a prospective study of 1400 eyes (n = 700) of enlisted soldiers aged 18 to 21 years who were consecutively evaluated in an outpatient army ophthalmology clinic. One drop of cyclopentolate 1 % was installed twice 10 min apart, and cycloplegic refraction was performed in both eyes 40 min later using an auto-refractor. The difference between non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refractive measurements was analyzed. RESULTS: The mean difference in SE between non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic measurements was 0.68 ± 0.83 D (95 % CI, 0.64-0.72). Significantly greater differences were observed in hypermetropes than myopes (1.30 ± 0.90 D versus 0.46 ± 0.68 D, p < 0.001). Moderate hypermetropes (2 to 5 D) demonstrated significantly greater refractive error than mild (0.5 to 2 D) or severe (>5 D) hypermetropes (1.71 ± 1.18 D versus 1.19 ± 0.74 D and 1.16 ± 1.08 D respectively, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Young hypermetropic adults possessed +1 to +2 D of latent hypermetropia. In contrast, young myopic adults revealed pseudomyopia of -0.5 D. Cycloplegic refraction should be performed in young hypermetropic adults complaining of various signs of asthenopia.
PURPOSE: The precise correction of refractive error is especially important in young adults. It is unclear whether cycloplegic refraction is necessary in this age group. The purpose of this study was to compare the non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic spherical equivalent (SE) refractive error measured in young adults. METHODS: This was a prospective study of 1400 eyes (n = 700) of enlisted soldiers aged 18 to 21 years who were consecutively evaluated in an outpatient army ophthalmology clinic. One drop of cyclopentolate 1 % was installed twice 10 min apart, and cycloplegic refraction was performed in both eyes 40 min later using an auto-refractor. The difference between non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refractive measurements was analyzed. RESULTS: The mean difference in SE between non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic measurements was 0.68 ± 0.83 D (95 % CI, 0.64-0.72). Significantly greater differences were observed in hypermetropes than myopes (1.30 ± 0.90 D versus 0.46 ± 0.68 D, p < 0.001). Moderate hypermetropes (2 to 5 D) demonstrated significantly greater refractive error than mild (0.5 to 2 D) or severe (>5 D) hypermetropes (1.71 ± 1.18 D versus 1.19 ± 0.74 D and 1.16 ± 1.08 D respectively, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Young hypermetropic adults possessed +1 to +2 D of latent hypermetropia. In contrast, young myopic adults revealed pseudomyopia of -0.5 D. Cycloplegic refraction should be performed in young hypermetropic adults complaining of various signs of asthenopia.
Authors: Akbar Fotouhi; Ian G Morgan; Rafael Iribarren; Mehdi Khabazkhoob; Hassan Hashemi Journal: Acta Ophthalmol Date: 2010-10-26 Impact factor: 3.761
Authors: Reena Fotedar; Elena Rochtchina; Ian Morgan; Jie Jin Wang; Paul Mitchell; Kathryn A Rose Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: H M Leibowitz; D E Krueger; L R Maunder; R C Milton; M M Kini; H A Kahn; R J Nickerson; J Pool; T L Colton; J P Ganley; J I Loewenstein; T R Dawber Journal: Surv Ophthalmol Date: 1980 May-Jun Impact factor: 6.048
Authors: Dorothy S P Fan; Srinivas K Rao; Joan S K Ng; Christopher B O Yu; Dennis S C Lam Journal: Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 4.207
Authors: Paul G Sanfilippo; Byoung-Sun Chu; Olivia Bigault; Lisa S Kearns; Mei-Ying Boon; Terri L Young; Christopher J Hammond; Alex W Hewitt; David A Mackey Journal: Acta Ophthalmol Date: 2014-03-19 Impact factor: 3.761
Authors: Ana M Calvo-Maroto; Sara Llorente-González; Jaione Bezunartea-Bezunartea; Francisco Javier Hurtado-Ceña; Clara Berrozpe-Villabona; Valentina Bilbao-Malavé; David P Piñero; Jesús Barrio-Barrio; Sergio Recalde-Maestre Journal: Children (Basel) Date: 2022-01-09