Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.61(3) > 1144103

Kim and Lee: Availability of Cycloplegic Refraction in Children and Adolescents

Abstract

Purpose

To compare non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refractive errors and evaluate the utility of cycloplegia in Korean children and young adolescents.

Methods

An anterospective study including 406 outpatients was conducted from September 2015 to December 2017. Pre and post-cycloplegic refractive errors for both eyes were measured using Ocucyclo® and Mydrin P® with an auto-refractor. Patients were divided into different groups according to age: group 1 (< 4 years), group 2 (4–6 years), group 3 (6–8 years), group 4 (8–10 years) and group 5 (< 20 years).

Results

A total of 203 patients were studied. Standard deviation (sphere post-pre) was 1.26 ± 1.02 diopters significant in all age groups (p < 0.05). The mean difference decreased with increasing age (r = 0.207, p < 0.05), however, 9% of group with age greater than 10 years old still had manifest refraction-cycloplegic refraction (MR-CR) difference greater than 2 diopters. There were no significant cylindrical or axial component value difference before and after cycloplegia (p = 0.071). Significantly greater MR-CR differences were observed in hypermetropes ≥ 6 years old and myopes ≤8 years old (p < 0.05). The prevalence of pre-cycloplegic eyes with anisometria was 22.6% and 32.6%, a total of 7.39% regressed after cycloplegia (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

After CR hyperopic shift was observed in all age groups. In patients with age greater than 10 years old, although statistically not significant, anisometropia and pseudomyopia still existed. Thus cycloplegic refraction should be performed in young adolescent to precisely measure and correct refractive error and avoid overcorrection.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1

Distribution of diopter difference after cycloplegia according to age group. D = diopters.

jkos-61-274-g001
Table 1

Changes in manifest and cycloplegic refraction by age

jkos-61-274-i001

Values are means ± standard deviation unless otherwise indicated.

m:f = male:female; SE: spherical equivalent; MR = manifest refraction; D = diopters; CR = cycloplegic refraction.

*Comparing mean SE (CR-MR) difference; t-test; chi-squared test.

Table 2

Changes in the values of the spherical and cylindrical components before and after cycloplegia (both eyes)

jkos-61-274-i002

Values are means ± standard deviation.

SE = spherical equivalent; SD = spherical difference; CD = cylinder difference; S = spherical; C = cyclinder.

*t-test.

Table 3

Proportions of spherical, cylindrical, and axial differences before and after cycloplegia (both eyes)

jkos-61-274-i003

Values are presented as the percent of eyes that differed.

SE = spherical equivalent.

*Differences in spherical and cylindrical values ≥ ±1.00D; differences in axial values ≥20°.

Table 4

Changes in sperical MR-spherical CR differences by the type of refractive error

jkos-61-274-i004

Values are presented as means ± standard deviation.

Sperical MR-spherical CR = spherical difference before and after cycloplegic refraction; D = diopters.

*Myopia was defined as ≥ −1.0D; emmetropia as <−1.0D to <+2D; hyperopia as ≥ +2D; §age ≤8 years, p < 0.05; age ≥6 years, p < 0.05; #t-test.

Table 5

Comparison of MR-CR difference according to strabismus type

jkos-61-274-i005

Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation.

XT = exotropia; ET = esotropia; CR = cycloplegic refraction; MR = manifest refraction; MR-CR = spherical difference of pre-post cycloplegic refraction.

*t-test; chi-square test.

Table 6

Percentage of true myopia according to age after cycloplegia (≥6 years)

jkos-61-274-i006

Values are presented as number (%) unless otherwise indicated. Good UCVA: Age ≤8 years old were showed UCVA ≥0.6. Age >8 years old were showed UCVA ≥0.8. Spherical difference ≥±0.5D were considered significant.

UCVA = uncorrected visual acuity; CR = cycloplegic refraction.

Table 7

Percentage of subjects with astigmatism ≥1 diopter

jkos-61-274-i007

Values are presented as % of number of eyes.

CR = cycloplegic refraction; MR = manifest refraction.

*chi-square test.

Notes

Conflicts of Interest The authors have no conflicts to disclose.

References

1. Moses RA. Adler's physiology of the eye. 7th ed. St. Louis: CV Mosby;1981. p. 333–335.
2. Radhakrishnan H, Charman WN. Age-related changes in static accommodation and accommodative miosis. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2007; 27:342–352.
crossref
3. Duane A. Studies in monocular and binocular accommodation, with their clinical application. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1922; 20:132–157.
4. Kim CK, Hong SH. Changes in refractive finding after using cycloplegics in young adult. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1984; 25:341–345.
5. Krantz EM, Cruickshanks KJ, Klein BE, et al. Measuring refraction in adults in epidemiological studies. Arch Ophthalmol. 2010; 128:88–92.
crossref
6. Fotedar R, Rochtchina E, Morgan I, et al. Necessity of cycloplegia for assessing refractive error in 12-year-old children: a population-based study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007; 144:307–309.
crossref
7. Chen J, Xie A, Hou L, et al. Cycloplegic and noncycloplegic refractions of Chinese neonatal infants. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011; 52:2456–2461.
crossref
8. Bannon RE. The use of cycloplegics in refraction. Am J Optom Arch Am Acad Optom. 1947; 24:513–568.
crossref
9. Maoury SD. Comparison of fixation targets during noncycloplegic retinoscopy. Am J Ophthalmol. 1967; 63:865.
crossref
10. Hiatt RL, Braswell R, Smith L, Patty JW. Refraction using mydriatic, cycloplegic, and manifest techniques. Am J Ophthalmol. 1973; 76:739–744.
crossref
11. Gwiazda J, Marsh-Tootle WL, Hyman L, et al. Baseline refractive and ocular component measures of children enrolled in the correction of myopia evaluation trial (COMET). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002; 43:314–321.
12. Fotouhi A, Morgan IG, Iribarren R, et al. Validity of noncycloplegic refraction in the assessment of refractive errors: the Tehran Eye Study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2012; 90:380–386.
crossref
13. Jorge J, Queiros A, González-Méijome J, et al. The influence of cycloplegia in objective refraction. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2005; 25:340–345.
crossref
14. Kleinstein RN, Jones LA, Hullett S, et al. Refractive error and ethnicity in children. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003; 121:1141–1147.
crossref
15. Huynh S, Kifley A, Rose K, et al. Astigmatism and its components in 6-year-old children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006; 47:55–64.
crossref
16. Huynh S, Kifley A, Rose K, et al. Astigmatism in 12-year-old Australian children: comparisons with a 6-year-old population. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007; 48:73–82.
crossref
17. Castagno V, Fassa A, Carret M, et al. Hyperopia: a meta-analysis of prevalence and a review of associated factors among school-aged children. BMC Ophthalmol. 2014; 14:163.
crossref
18. Guha S, Shah S, Shah K, et al. A comparison of cycloplegic autorefraction and retinoscopy in Indian children. Clin Exp Optom. 2017; 100:73–78.
crossref
19. Dobson V, Harvey E, Miller J, Clifford-Donaldson CE. Anisometropia prevalence in a highly astigmatic school-aged population. Optom Vis Sci. 2008; 85:512–519.
crossref
20. Kim R, Lee SY. The ratio of accommodative-convergence to accommodation in patients with nonrefractive accommodative esotropia. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2014; 55:267–270.
crossref
21. Hofmeister EM, Kaupp SE, Schallhorn SC. Comparison of tropicamide and cyclopentolate for cycloplegic refractions in myopic adult refractive surgery patients. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005; 31:694–700.
crossref
22. Yang SW, Lee NY, Kim SY. The effect of cycloplegia on vision and stereopsis: comparison between before and after cycloplegia. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2006; 47:1454–1458.
23. Anderson HA, Hentz G, Glasser A, et al. Minus-lens-stimulated accommodative amplitude decreases sigmoidally with age: a study of objectively measured accommodative amplitudes from age 3. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008; 49:2919–2926.
crossref
24. Shufelt C, Fraser-Bell S, Ying-Lai M, et al. Refractive error, ocular biometry, and lens opalescence in an adult population: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005; 46:4450–4460.
crossref
25. Gwiazda J, Deng L, Manny R, et al. Seasonal variations in the progression of myopia in children enrolled in the correction of myopia evaluation trial. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014; 55:752–758.
crossref
26. Morgan IG, Iribarren R, Fotouhi A, Grzybowski A. Cycloplegic refraction is the gold standard for epidemiological studies. Acta Ophthalmol. 2015; 93:581–585.
crossref
27. Choong YF, Chen AH, Goh PP. A comparison of autorefraction and subjective refraction with and without cycloplegia in primary school children. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006; 142:68–74.
crossref
28. Zhao J, Mao J, Luo R, et al. Accuracy of noncycloplegic autorefraction in school-age children in China. Optom Vis Sci. 2004; 81:49–55.
crossref
29. Liang CL, Hung KS, Park N, et al. Comparison of measurements of refractive errors between the hand-held Retinomax and on-table autorefractors in cyclopleged and noncyclopleged children. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003; 136:1120–1128.
crossref
30. Twelker JD, Mutti DO. Retinoscopy in infants using a near non-cycloplegic technique, cycloplegia with tropicamide 1%, and cycloplegia with cyclopentolate 1%. Optom Vis Sci. 2001; 78:215–222.
crossref
31. Sanfilippo PG, Chu BS, Bigault O, et al. What is the appropriate age cut-off for cycloplegia in refraction? Acta Ophthalmol. 2014; 92:e458–e462.
crossref
32. Hu Y, Wu J, Lu T, et al. Effect of cycloplegia on the refractive status of children: the Shandong children eye study. PLoS One. 2015; 10:e0117482.
crossref
33. Wesemann W, Dick B. Accuracy and accommodation capability of a handheld autorefractor. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000; 26:62–70.
crossref
TOOLS
Similar articles