RESUMO
PURPOSE: To find the error rate in quantifying aniseikonia by using "Rule of Thumb" estimation in comparison with proven space eikonometry. METHODS: Study 1: 24 adult pseudophakic individuals were measured for anisometropia, and astigmatic interocular difference. Rule of Thumb quantification for prescription was calculated and compared with aniseikonia measurement by the classical Essilor Projection Space Eikonometer. Study 2: parallel analysis was performed on 62 consecutive phakic patients from our strabismus clinic group. RESULTS: Frequency of error: For Group 1 (24 cases): 5 ( or 21 %) were equal (i.e., 1% or less difference); 16 (or 67% ) were greater (more than 1% different); and 3 (13%) were less by Rule of Thumb calculation in comparison to aniseikonia determined on the Essilor eikonometer. For Group 2 (62 cases): 45 (or 73%) were equal (1% or less); 10 (or 16%) were greater; and 7 (or 11%) were lower in the Rule of Thumb calculations in comparison to Essilor eikonometry. Magnitude of error: In Group 1, in 10/24 (29%) aniseikonia by Rule of Thumb estimation was 100% or more greater than by space eikonometry, and in 6 of those ten by 200% or more. In Group 2, in 4/62 (6%) aniseikonia by Rule of Thumb estimation was 200% or more greater than by space eikonometry. CONCLUSION: The frequency and magnitude of apparent clinical errors of Rule of Thumb estimation is disturbingly large. This problem is greatly magnified by the time and effort and cost of prescribing and executing an aniseikonic correction for a patient. The higher the refractive error, the greater the anisometropia, and the worse the errors in Rule of Thumb estimation of aniseikonia. Accurate eikonometric methods and devices should be employed in all cases where such measurements can be made. Rule of thumb estimations should be limited to cases where such subjective testing and measurement cannot be performed, as in infants after unilateral cataract surgery.