email   Email Us: info@lupinepublishers.com phone   Call Us: +1 (914) 407-6109   57 West 57th Street, 3rd floor, New York - NY 10019, USA

Lupine Publishers Group

Lupine Publishers

  Submit Manuscript

Research Article(ISSN: 2644-1209)

Comparative Study between Mohindra Retinoscopy and Subjective Refraction, in Young Adults with Accommodative Excess

Volume 2 - Issue 3

Cátia Almeida1, Andresa Fernandes1* and Amélia Fernandes Nunes1,2*

  • Author Information Open or Close
    • 1Clinical and Experimental Center of Vision Sciences, Universidade da Beira Interior, Portugal
    • 2Center for Research in Health Sciences, ubiMedical, Universidade da Beira Interior, Portugal

    *Corresponding author:Amélia Fernandes Nunes, Center for Research in Health Sciences, Universidade da Beira Interior, Portugal

Received:September 09, 2019;   Published:October 15, 2019

DOI: 10.32474/TOOAJ.2018.02.000140

Full Text PDF

To view the Full Article   Peer-reviewed Article PDF

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the results of three refractive techniques: Autorefractor (AR), Mohindra Retinoscopy (MR) and Monocular Subjective (MS) and study the differences between the results of Mohindra Retinoscopy and Monocular Subjective test, in subjects with accommodative excess.

Methods: The refractive measurements were taken with the open field AR (Grand Seiko WAM-5500), the monocular subjective refraction and MR, and measures of accommodative flexibility and Monocular Estimated Method (MEM) were also taken, in 85 right eyes of 85 healthy university students. (22.3±2.4 years).

Results: Statistically significant differences were found on the spherical equivalent for the three techniques, with the Friedman statistical test (N=85; χ_F^2=42.771; p<0.0001). The MR is the technique that provide more positive results and the AR the most negative. Regarding astigmatic components there was no statistically significant differences found between the techniques, with de Friedman statistical test. Data were also analyzed based on accommodation function and there were no statistically significant differences found between subjects with accommodative excess and subjects with normal accommodation, for the spherical equivalent (N=74; H=1.785; p=0.410), and for J0 component (N=74; F=0.948; p=0.392), with the Kruskal-Wallis statistical test.

Conclusion: These results revealed significant differences between the three refractive techniques in young adults, independently of accommodative state. The open field AR overestimated some degree of accommodation during the refractive measurements and the MR was the technique that presented more positive results, even in subjects with normal accommodative function. Regarding astigmatic components, all the techniques provide similar results.

Keywords: Mohindra retinoscopy; accommodative excess; monocular subjective refraction; refractive state; university students

Abbreviations: Accommodative Excess (AE); Visual Acuity (VA); diopters (D); Monocular Estimation Method retinoscopy (MEM); Autorefractor (AR); Mohindra Retinoscopy (MR); Monocular Subjective (MS); Monocular Accommodative Facility (MAF); Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS); Minnesota Low Vision Reading Test (MNREAD); spherical equivalent (SE)

Abstract| Introduction| Methods| Results| Discussion| References|

https://www.high-endrolex.com/21