Comparison of Objective and Subjective Techniques of Strabismus Measurement in Adults With Normal Retinal Correspondence
Abstract
Purpose:
Accurate measurement of strabismus is vital to proper diagnosis and treatment. Objective and subjective measurement techniques can be used. The authors hypothesized that subjective measurement techniques would measure larger deviations than objective ones.
Methods:
Adults with strabismus, visual acuity greater than 20/50 in each eye, and normal retinal correspondence were measured in primary gaze at distance and near using the alternate prism and cover test and the red glass test.
Results:
Seventy-three patients were prospectively enrolled. Objective mean deviations were 9.1 (distance horizontal), 5.1 (distance vertical), 10.0 (near horizontal), and 2.6 (near vertical) prism diopters (PD). Subjective mean deviations were 10.2 (distance horizontal), 6.8 (distance vertical), 12.2 (near horizontal), and 3.2 (near vertical) PD. Subjective measurements were larger by a statistically significant margin and were more likely to show the presence of a vertical deviation not measured objectively (19 occurrences vs 2 at near, P = .008; 15 occurrences vs 0 at distance, P = .004). The measured deviations were within 5 PD horizontally and 3 PD vertically most of the time (range: 66.7% to 83.6%).
Conclusions:
The red glass test was more likely to measure a larger deviation at distance and near and to identify a vertical deviation not seen objectively at both distance and near. The mean difference between the tests was usually not large enough to affect surgical treatment, but could potentially result in different amounts of prescribed prism for patients treated optically.
[J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2017;54(4):216–220.]
- 1.Holmes JM, Leske DA, Hohberger GG. Defining real change in prism-cover test measurements. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008; 145:381–385.
10.1016/j.ajo.2007.09.012 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 2.Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. Interobserver reliability of the prism and alternate cover test in children with esotropia. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009; 127:59–65.
10.1001/archophthalmol.2008.548 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 3.Anderson HA, Manny RE, Cotter SA, Mitchell GL, Irani JA. Effect of examiner experience and technique on the alternate cover test. Optom Vis Sci. 2010; 87:168–175.
10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181d1d954 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 4.de Jongh E, Leach C, Tjon-Fo-Sang MJ, Bjerre A. Inter-examiner variability and agreement of the alternate prism cover test (APCT) measurements of strabismus performed by 4 examiners. Strabismus. 2014; 22:158–166.
10.3109/09273972.2014.972521 Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 5.Schutte S, Polling JR, van der Helm FC, Simonsz HJ. Human error in strabismus surgery: quantification with a sensitivity analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2009; 247:399–409.
10.1007/s00417-008-0961-x Crossref Medline, Google Scholar - 6.von Noorden GK, Campos EC. Binocular Vision and Ocular Motility: Theory and Management of Strabismus, 6th ed.St. Louis: Mosby; 2001. Google Scholar
