Feasibility of optical quality analysis system for the objective assessment of accommodation insufficiency: a phase 1 study

Esther López Artero; Nuria Garzón Jiménez; Manuel Rodríguez Vallejo; Maria Garcia Montero

Ayuda

Feasibility of optical quality analysis system for the objective assessment of accommodation insufficiency: a phase 1 study

Esther López-Artero ^[2] ; Nuria Garzón ^[2] ^[1] ; Manuel Rodríguez-Vallejo ^[3] ; María García-Montero ^[2] ^[1]
1. [1] Universidad Complutense de Madrid
  
  Universidad Complutense de Madrid
  
  Madrid, España
2. [2] Miranza Group, Madrid, C/Galileo 104, 28003 Madrid, Spain
3. [3] Qvision, Department of Ophthalmology, Vithas Virgen del Mar Hospital, 04120, Almería, Spain
Mostrar afiliaciones +
Localización: Journal of Optometry: peer-reviewed Journal of the Spanish General Council of Optometry, ISSN-e 1888-4296, Vol. 14, Nº. 3, 2021, págs. 287-294
Idioma: inglés
Enlaces
- Texto completo
Resumen
- Purpose To assess differences in a new objective metric obtained with a double-pass technique between a group with accommodation insufficiency (AI) and a control group and to explore the diagnostic capabilities of this new tool in comparison to conventional procedures.
  
  Methods Retrospective cross-sectional case-control phase 1 study. Two groups with ages ranging from 8 to 18 years were recruited: AI and control group. The diagnostic criterion of AI was based on monocular accommodative amplitude (AA), 2 D below Hofstetter’s calculation for minimum AA, and monocular accommodative facility (MAF), failing with minus lens and cut-off at ≤ 6 cycles per minute. Accommodative response with a double pass device (HD Analyzer, Visiometrics) was measured, performing an evaluation from +1.00 D to −3.50D (−0.5D steps), offering the width of the profile at 50% (WP) in minutes of arc.
  
  Results Differences were found between groups for the AA, MAF and MEM retinoscopy (p < 0.0001, p < 0.001, p = 0.037). The discriminative capacity of MEM retinoscopy for AI diagnosis was significant and the cut-off that maximized the sensitivity and specificity was > 0.5 D. Considering WP 50% in different points, the discriminative AI diagnosis capacities for the points of 2.0 D and 2.50 D were significant (ROC-AUC 0.78; p = 0.03 and p = 0.02).
  
  Conclusions Double-pass system metric differed between patients with AI and control group, therefore the aim of a Phase I study was achieved. Further steps with higher sample sizes are required to evidence if the system really provides any advantage versus conventional methods in the diagnosis of AI.