FP1208 : Comparison of spot photoscreener and automated refractometer in differently abled children

Dr. B.A. Maithri, B20101, Dr. Shruti Nishanth, Dr. Nivean M

Introduction: Spot vision screener (SVS) is an instrument that utilises the optical images of red eye reflex to assess refractive errors, ocular alignment and  is an objective method of assessing refractive errors in patients from 6 months of age and needs only minimal cooperation on the patients part in addition to being quick, easy and a portable device.

Purpose: To assess and compare the efficacy of spot vision screener (SVS) and automated refractometer (AR) in 70 eyes of 35 differently abled children.

Materials and Methods: This is a comparative study in which SPOT photoscreener readings were taken at one meter distance followed by autorefractometer reading. Three readings of SVS and three readings of autorefractometer were taken and those with <0.25D difference between were considered significant.

Results:

Among the 35 patients included in this study, 25 were male and 10 were female, out of which 10 male patients were reported abnormal and 7 female patients were reported abnormal by the SPOT readings.

GENDER	MALE	FEMALE
TOTAL	25	10
NORMAL	15	3
ABNORMAL	10	7

Figure 1: Showing the number of male/female patients and abnormal readings reported in SPOT photoscreener.

SPOT photoscreener readings were taken in all the patients including uncooperative patients who could briefly fixate at the instrument. Autorefractometer readings were taken only in 29 patients and reported error in 6 patients, suggesting SVS readings are more feasible in uncoorporative patients.

Out of 35 patients, 17 patients ( nearly 50% ) were reported to have refractive error by the SVS. 16 of them had uncorrected refractive error and 1 patient was using corrective spectacles.

Conclusion: Thorough information was obtained, such as refractive errors, strabismus, ptosis and media opacities. The mean spherical equivalent of the refractive errors reported by the SVS and AR was calculated for each reading, the difference between SVS and AR reading was calculated algebraically. Average of these numbers were taken for right eye and left eye, which was 0.48 and 0.3 respectively, hence negligible difference is seen between the SVS and AR reading proving both to be of equal significance. Spot vision screener was found to be effective in yielding results even in uncooperative patients proving spot vision screener to be more advantageous than autorefractometer.

Referrences:

1. Schuman, AJ. Vision Screening in Children. The role of automated vision screening technology. Contemporary Pediatrics. V2.0 Jan. 2013, 41-44.
2. Alley CL. Preschool vision screening: update on guidelines and techniques. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2013;24(5):415-20. doi: 10.1097/ICU.0b013e3283641c56.
3. Singman E, Matta N, Tian J, Silbert D. A comparison of referral criteria used by the PlusoptiX photoscreener. Strabismus. 2013;21(3):190-4. doi: 10.3109/09273972.2013.811606.
4. Birch EE. Amblyopia and binocular vision. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2013;33:67-84. doi: 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2012.11.001. Epub 2012 Nov 29.
5. Pascual M, Huang J, Maguire MG, Kulp MT, et al. Vision In Preschoolers (VIP) Study Group. Risk factors for amblyopia in the Vision in Preschoolers study. Ophthalmology. 2014; 121(3): 622-629. 2013 Oct 18. pii: S0161-6420(13)00800-2. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.08.040. [Epub ahead of print]
6. Rein DB, Wittenborn JS, Zhang X, Song M, Saaddine JB; Vision Cost-effectiveness Study Group. The potential cost-effectiveness of amblyopia screening programs. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2012; 49(3):146–156. Published online 2011 August 30. doi: 10.3928/01913913-20110823-02.