| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.75 MB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
Introdução: O uso de cicloplégicos na prática clínica é comum e são bem conhecidos os efeitos
adversos associados ao seu uso em diferentes populações. A retinoscopia de Mohindra pode ser
comparada com técnicas objetivas de refração nomeadamente as que recorrem a agentes
cicloplégicos. A retinoscopia de Mohindra é rápida e precisa e comparável à retinoscopia
cicloplégica que é mais demorada e que em alguns casos, bem documentados, não deve ser
utilizada. Este trabalho tem como objetivo principal comparar os resultados da retinoscopia
de Mohindra com dois métodos refrativos objetivos: a retinoscopia cicloplégica e autorefração
com e sem cicloplegia.
Métodos: 16 indivíduos que foram selecionados a partir de um total de 30 voluntários
estudantes de Licenciatura e Mestrado na Universidade da Beira Interior. Todos foram
submetidos à verificação dos critérios inclusão através da: medição da pressão intraocular, do
ângulo Iridocorneal e avaliação através de entrevista com perguntas de resposta fechada.
Apenas os 16 indivíduos foram submetidos à medição objetiva do erro refrativo através da
Retinoscopia de Mohindra, Retinoscopia Cicloplégica, autorefração com e sem cicloplegia.
Mediu-se a acuidade visual usando os resultados das diferentes técnicas. Foram ainda avaliados
os efeitos secundários através de um questionário on-line desenvolvido pela autora, em
português de Portugal, para a investigação em questão e todos os participantes que foram
incluídos no estudo responderam ao mesmo.
Resultados: Quando comparadas as diferentes técnicas estudadas com Retinoscopia de
Mohindra observa-se não existirem diferenças estatisticamente significativas para o valor do
equivalente esférico do estado refrativo obtido (ρARseco=0,930; ρARhúmido=0,104; ρRC=0,431). Por
outro lado, para a medição da AV com o erro refrativo obtido nas diferentes técnicas não
existem diferenças estatisticamente significativas. Verifica-se uma correspondência linear
forte entre os valores refrativos obtidos nas diferentes técnicas (RARseco=0,979;ρARseco=1,000;
RARhúmido=0,982;ρARhúmido=0,384; RRC=0,992;ρRC=0,939) e correspondência linear moderada para a
AV determinados na Retinoscopia de Mohindra e as outras três técnicas
(RARseco=0,546;ρARseco=0,024; RARhúmido=0,573;ρARhúmido=0,006; RRC=0,642;ρRC=0,074).
Conclusão: Com base nos resultados conclui-se que a Retinoscopia de Mohindra é a técnica
mais indicada e com resultados mais fiáveis em comparação com os valores obtidos com a
Retinoscopia Cicloplégica e com o Auto Refratometrio.
Background: The use of cycloplegics in clinical practice is common and the adverse effects associated with its use in different populations are well known. Mohindra retinoscopy can be compared with other objective refraction techniques, namely those using cycloplegic agents. Mohindra retinoscopy is fast, accurate and comparable to cycloplegic retinoscopy which takes more time and, in some well-documented cases, can’t be used. This study aims to compare Mohindra retinoscopy with two objective refractive methods: cycloplegic retinoscopy and selfrefractometry. Methods: 16 participants were selected from a total of 30 volunteers, students at the Beira Interior University. All volunteers were subjected to intraocular pressure measurement, Iridocorneal angle measurement, and evaluation of the history of drug allergies, accommodative and/or vergence problems and ocular, neurological and/or systemic disorders. The participants were subsequently subjected to objective measurement of refractive error through Mohindra Retinoscopy, Cycloplegic Retinoscopy, automatic refractometry with and without cycloplegia. Visual acuity was measured using the refractive results of the different techniques. All participants who were included in the study answered an online questionnaire developed by the author for this research aiming to evaluate the side effects. Results: There are no significant differences in the value of the spherical equivalent of the refractive state obtained between the different techniques. Also wasn’t found any significant differences regarding VA measurement with the refractive error obtained in the different techniques, there are no statistically significant differences. There is a strong linear correspondence between the refractive values obtained in the different techniques (RARseco=0,979;ρARseco=1,000; RARhúmido=0,982;ρARhúmido=0,384; RRC=0,992;ρRC=0,939) and moderate linear correspondence for VA) determined in Mohindra retinoscopy and the other three techniques (RARseco=0,546;ρARseco=0,024; RARhúmido=0,573;ρARhúmido=0,006; RRC=0,642;ρRC=0,074). Conclusion: Based on the results, we concluded that Mohindra retinoscopy is an appropriate technique with reliable results compared to the refractive values obtained with the other techniques.
Background: The use of cycloplegics in clinical practice is common and the adverse effects associated with its use in different populations are well known. Mohindra retinoscopy can be compared with other objective refraction techniques, namely those using cycloplegic agents. Mohindra retinoscopy is fast, accurate and comparable to cycloplegic retinoscopy which takes more time and, in some well-documented cases, can’t be used. This study aims to compare Mohindra retinoscopy with two objective refractive methods: cycloplegic retinoscopy and selfrefractometry. Methods: 16 participants were selected from a total of 30 volunteers, students at the Beira Interior University. All volunteers were subjected to intraocular pressure measurement, Iridocorneal angle measurement, and evaluation of the history of drug allergies, accommodative and/or vergence problems and ocular, neurological and/or systemic disorders. The participants were subsequently subjected to objective measurement of refractive error through Mohindra Retinoscopy, Cycloplegic Retinoscopy, automatic refractometry with and without cycloplegia. Visual acuity was measured using the refractive results of the different techniques. All participants who were included in the study answered an online questionnaire developed by the author for this research aiming to evaluate the side effects. Results: There are no significant differences in the value of the spherical equivalent of the refractive state obtained between the different techniques. Also wasn’t found any significant differences regarding VA measurement with the refractive error obtained in the different techniques, there are no statistically significant differences. There is a strong linear correspondence between the refractive values obtained in the different techniques (RARseco=0,979;ρARseco=1,000; RARhúmido=0,982;ρARhúmido=0,384; RRC=0,992;ρRC=0,939) and moderate linear correspondence for VA) determined in Mohindra retinoscopy and the other three techniques (RARseco=0,546;ρARseco=0,024; RARhúmido=0,573;ρARhúmido=0,006; RRC=0,642;ρRC=0,074). Conclusion: Based on the results, we concluded that Mohindra retinoscopy is an appropriate technique with reliable results compared to the refractive values obtained with the other techniques.
Description
Keywords
Autorefratómetro Cicloplentolato 1%. Retinoscopia Cicloplégica Retinoscopia de Mohindra