Are Horizontal Fusional Vergences Comparable When Measured Using a Prism Bar and Synoptophore?

Q3 Medicine
British and Irish Orthoptic Journal Pub Date : 2024-03-22 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.22599/bioj.326
Shania Haque, Sonia Toor, David Buckley
{"title":"Are Horizontal Fusional Vergences Comparable When Measured Using a Prism Bar and Synoptophore?","authors":"Shania Haque, Sonia Toor, David Buckley","doi":"10.22599/bioj.326","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To determine whether horizontal fusional vergences are comparable when measured using a prism bar and synoptophore.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty two participants (18-23 years) had their blur, break, and recovery points measured for convergence and divergence amplitudes using a prism bar (6 m) and synoptophore. All participants had VA of 0.1 LogMAR or better in either eye, were heterophoric or orthophoric and had binocular single vision. The prism bar target was a 0.2 LogMAR letter. The synoptophore target was the foveal 'rabbit' fusion slides. The prism bar was placed over the dominant eye and the testing speed was two seconds per two prism dioptres (Δ), increasing to five seconds per 5Δ when the increments began to increase in 5Δ. Synoptophore testing speed was two seconds per degree.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The synoptophore measured significantly higher convergence break points than the prism bar (Z = 3.37, p = 0.001). No significant differences were found between both tests for divergence break points (Z = 0.99, p = 0.32). However, both tests displayed wide limits of agreement (LoA) when measuring convergence (-24Δ to + 49.59Δ) and divergence break points (-7.70Δ to + 10.19Δ). Differences when measuring convergence and divergence blur and recovery points were not statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was a statistically and clinically significant difference when measuring convergence break points using the prism bar and synoptophore but no significant difference when measuring divergence break points. However, both tests displayed wide LoA when measuring convergence and divergence break points, indicating they should not be used interchangeably in clinic to measure horizontal fusional vergences.</p>","PeriodicalId":36083,"journal":{"name":"British and Irish Orthoptic Journal","volume":"20 1","pages":"85-93"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10959145/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British and Irish Orthoptic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22599/bioj.326","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To determine whether horizontal fusional vergences are comparable when measured using a prism bar and synoptophore.

Methods: Thirty two participants (18-23 years) had their blur, break, and recovery points measured for convergence and divergence amplitudes using a prism bar (6 m) and synoptophore. All participants had VA of 0.1 LogMAR or better in either eye, were heterophoric or orthophoric and had binocular single vision. The prism bar target was a 0.2 LogMAR letter. The synoptophore target was the foveal 'rabbit' fusion slides. The prism bar was placed over the dominant eye and the testing speed was two seconds per two prism dioptres (Δ), increasing to five seconds per 5Δ when the increments began to increase in 5Δ. Synoptophore testing speed was two seconds per degree.

Results: The synoptophore measured significantly higher convergence break points than the prism bar (Z = 3.37, p = 0.001). No significant differences were found between both tests for divergence break points (Z = 0.99, p = 0.32). However, both tests displayed wide limits of agreement (LoA) when measuring convergence (-24Δ to + 49.59Δ) and divergence break points (-7.70Δ to + 10.19Δ). Differences when measuring convergence and divergence blur and recovery points were not statistically significant.

Conclusion: There was a statistically and clinically significant difference when measuring convergence break points using the prism bar and synoptophore but no significant difference when measuring divergence break points. However, both tests displayed wide LoA when measuring convergence and divergence break points, indicating they should not be used interchangeably in clinic to measure horizontal fusional vergences.

使用棱镜条和同步光学视管测量的水平融合度是否具有可比性?
目的:确定使用棱镜条和同步光源测量水平融合幅值是否具有可比性:方法:32 名参与者(18-23 岁)使用棱镜条(6 米)和同步视杆测量了他们的模糊点、断裂点和恢复点的辐辏和发散振幅。所有参与者的双眼视力均在 0.1 LogMAR 或更高水平,为异视或正视,双眼单视。棱镜条目标是一个 0.2 LogMAR 的字母。同视目标是眼窝 "兔子 "融合幻灯片。棱镜条置于主视眼上方,测试速度为每两棱镜二倍(Δ)两秒,当增量开始以 5Δ 递增时,测试速度增加到每 5Δ 五秒。同步荧光屏测试速度为每度两秒:结果:同步视杆仪测得的辐辏断点明显高于棱镜视杆仪(Z = 3.37,p = 0.001)。两种测试在发散断点上没有发现明显差异(Z = 0.99,p = 0.32)。然而,在测量会聚点(-24Δ 至 + 49.59Δ)和发散点(-7.70Δ 至 + 10.19Δ)时,两个测试的一致性范围(LoA)都很大。在测量辐辏和发散模糊点和恢复点时,差异无统计学意义:结论:使用棱镜条和同步视光镜测量辐辏断裂点在统计学和临床上有显著差异,但测量发散断裂点时没有显著差异。然而,在测量辐辏点和发散点时,这两种测试都显示出较宽的 LoA,这表明在临床上测量水平融合幅值时,这两种测试不应交替使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
British and Irish Orthoptic Journal
British and Irish Orthoptic Journal Health Professions-Optometry
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信