Utility of retinoscopy to examine peripheral refraction.

PURPOSE: This study explored whether retinoscopy (RET) provides comparable results of relative peripheral refraction (RPR) to open-field autorefractometry (AR) in myopic subjects. METHODS: Peripheral refraction was measured in 20 myopic and 20 control adult subjects. Both central and peripheral refraction (20° nasal and temporal eccentricity) were measured using RET and open-field AR. Differences in the median central spherical equivalent (SE), median RPR, and median J45/J180 power vectors between the RET and AR techniques were analyzed. Moreover, Bland - Altman plots were used to assess the agreement between RET and AR methods for RPR measurements in MG. RESULTS: For MG, the median RPR values were positive (hyperopic shift), and no significant differences were observed between the RET and AR techniques with respect to RPR measurement. In addition, we did not observe any significant differences in the RPR values between the nasal and temporal eccentricities for either the RET or AR technique for myopic subjects. There was also a significant correlation and agreement between the RET and AR technique for RPR measurements. With respect to central refraction, the median SE was slightly more positive for the RET than for the AR technique. Inside the CG, we also found significant correlation between the RET and AR technique for RPR measurements, and we observed a myopic shift in peripheral eccentricities. CONCLUSION: Our results show that retinoscopy may be a useful tool for objective measurements of RPR in myopic subjects and may be used interchangeably with the open-field AR method in everyday clinical practice.

Utility of retinoscopy to examine peripheral refraction

Purpose: This study explored whether retinoscopy (RET) provides comparable results of relative peripheral refraction (RPR) to open–field autorefractometry (AR) in myopic subjects.Methods: Peripheral refraction was measured in 20 myopic and 20 control adult subjects. Both central and peripheral refraction (20° nasal and temporal eccentricity) were measured using RET and open-field AR. Differences in the median central spherical equivalent (SE), median RPR, and median J45/J180 power vectors between the RET and AR techniques were analyzed. Moreover, Bland – Altman plots were used to assess the agreement between RET and AR methods for RPR measurements in MG. Results: For MG, the median RPR values were positive (hyperopic shift), and no significant differences were observed between the RET and AR techniques with respect to RPR measurement. In addition, we did not observe any significant differences in the RPR values between the nasal and temporal eccentricities for either the RET or AR technique for myopic subjects. There was also a significant correlation and agreement between the RET and AR technique for RPR measurements. With respect to central refraction, the median SE was slightly more positive for the RET than for the AR technique. Inside the CG, we also found significant correlation between the RET and AR technique for RPR measurements, and we observed a myopic shift in peripheral eccentricities. Conclusion: Our results show that retinoscopy may be a useful tool for objective measurements of RPR in myopic subjects and may be used interchangeably with the open-field AR method in everyday clinical practice. (AU)