EFFECT OF AMBIENT LIGHT INTENSITY ON AUTO- REFRACTOMETER RESULTS

Aiman Khan, Imran Ahmed, Muhammad Anwar Awan, Asad Aslam Khan

Abstract


BACKGROUND: Refractive errors are considered a public health problem in many countries as well as by the WHO. This study compares refractive errors readings on auto-refractometer in the different intensity of illuminations such as bright light and dim light conditions.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the difference in auto-refractometer results in dim and bright light.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: It was a descriptive cross-sectional study conducted on 100 patients having a different degree of myopia and hyperopia. This study includes the effect of ambient light intensity on auto-refractometer results in myopic and hyperopic patients with no associated ocular pathology. Distance (6m) visual acuity was measured by using Snellen distance visual acuity chart. Retinoscopy was also performed.

RESULTS: Light intensity affected both hyperopic and myopic. 0.25 diopter difference between dim and bright light auto-refractometer results was 26%, 0.50 diopter difference is in 22%, 1.0 diopter difference is in 14% and no difference is in 38% patients. Accommodation is also affected. Pupil size was large in darkroom procedure. In most patients, type of refractive error was myopia and prevalence of refractive error is more in females as compared to males.

CONCLUSION: It is concluded that a significant number of patients with myopia and hypermetropia show a minor difference in auto-refractometer readings in dark and lightroom. In high refractive errors, the difference in results between dim and bright light was large as compared to small refractive error.


Full Text:

PDF

References


: Jorge J, Queiros A , Almedia J, Parafita M. Retinoscopy/Auto refraction in clinical practice. Opthalmol J. 2008 Jan; 82 (1):64 -8.

: Optronic K. Refractometer for laboratory. Product Page of A Kruss Optronic Gmbh. 1997 March; 320(3):78-90.

: Jones La, Zadnik K, Moeschberger K. A retrospective study of myopia progression in adult contact lens wearers. Invest opthalmolol vis sciences. 2002 May; 43(4):2112-2118.

: Barish Im, Chicago Il. Clinical refraction. The professional press, Inc. 1975 August; 37(3):65.

: Mayer Dl, Moore Bd, Fulton Ab, Hansen Rm. Cycloplegic refraction in healthy children aged 1. Arch Opthalmol.2010 Jan; 119(7):1625-1628.

: Donahue Sp. Prescribing spectacles in children, a pediatric ophthalmologist’s approach. Optom vis sci.2007 May; 84(2):110-114.

: Young Tl, Leo Sw. An evidence based update on myopia and interventions to retard its progression. J Am Assoc Pediatr Opthalmol Strab.2011 Sep; 15(8):182-189.

: Haeseker J, Hook J, Bradely A. A comparison of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity charts, Ophthalmic and physiological optics. The journal of British college of ophthalmic opticians.1991 July; 11(3):218-226.

: Frederick Dr. Myopia. The pathobiology of ocular disease.2002 Oct; 324(73):1195-9.

: Yang Y, Thompson K, Burns Sa. Pupil location under mesopic, photopic, and pharmacologically dilated conditions. Invest Opthalmol Vis Sci.2002 June; 43(5):2508-2512.

: Blumenthal Ez, Horani A, Frenkel S. The effect of pupil dilatation on scanning laser polarimetry with variable corneal compensation. Invest Opthalmol Vis Sci ARVO.2004 April; 8(2):170-183.

: Leibowitz Hw, Owens Da. Anomalous myopia and the intermediate dark focus of accommodation. Science.1975 Aug; 189(4203):646-8.

: Jiang Bc, Gish Kw, Leibowitz Hw. Effect of luminance on the relation between accommodation and convergence. Optom Vis Sci. 1991 March; 68(3):220-5.

: Morgan I, Rose K. How genetic is school myopia. Prog Retin Eye Res.2005 Dec; 24(3):1-38.

: Espanol En. Retinoscopy. American association for pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus. 2006 June; 10(3):234-238.