Journal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus · 2011
Comparing homatropine and atropine in pediatric cycloplegic refractions.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shah Bhavin M, Sharma Pradeep, Menon Vimla, Saxena Rohit, Singh Jai Pal
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare cycloplegic efficacy of homatropine and atropine in pediatric refractions and derive a regression formula to calculate refraction findings for both agents.
METHODS: Children between the ages of 4 to 10 years with refractive error underwent cycloplegic refraction with 2% homatropine and 1% atropine by retinoscopy and automated refraction. Refractive data were compared by the use of power vector analysis. Primary outcome measures were spherical equivalent (SE), astigmatic components of refractive error (J(0) and J(45)), overall blur strength of refractive error, and residual accommodation.
RESULTS: A total of 63 children with refractive error were enrolled (mean age, 6.7 ± 1.6 years). Compared with homatropine, atropine uncovered significantly greater hyperopic SE in patients with hypermetropia (4.2 ± 2.5 D [atropine] vs 3.5 ± 2.3 D [homatropine]; P < 0.001) as well as myopia (-1.8 ± 1.4 D [atropine] vs -2.1 ± 1.4 D [homatropine]; P < 0.001). Overall blur strength was significantly greater with atropine (3.1 ± 2.1 [atropine] vs 2.9 ± 1.9 [homatropine]; P = 0.003). Homatropine had a significantly greater residual accommodation (1.8 ± 0.4 D [atropine] vs 3.1 ± 0.5 D [homatropine]; P < 0.001). A regression formula was derived.
CONCLUSIONS: Of the 2 cycloplegic agents, atropine yielded more consistent results than homatropine; however atropine had a relatively slow onset and prolonged effect. Our regression formula may make it possible to derive atropine-like results while using the clinically more versatile homatropine.
METHODS: Children between the ages of 4 to 10 years with refractive error underwent cycloplegic refraction with 2% homatropine and 1% atropine by retinoscopy and automated refraction. Refractive data were compared by the use of power vector analysis. Primary outcome measures were spherical equivalent (SE), astigmatic components of refractive error (J(0) and J(45)), overall blur strength of refractive error, and residual accommodation.
RESULTS: A total of 63 children with refractive error were enrolled (mean age, 6.7 ± 1.6 years). Compared with homatropine, atropine uncovered significantly greater hyperopic SE in patients with hypermetropia (4.2 ± 2.5 D [atropine] vs 3.5 ± 2.3 D [homatropine]; P < 0.001) as well as myopia (-1.8 ± 1.4 D [atropine] vs -2.1 ± 1.4 D [homatropine]; P < 0.001). Overall blur strength was significantly greater with atropine (3.1 ± 2.1 [atropine] vs 2.9 ± 1.9 [homatropine]; P = 0.003). Homatropine had a significantly greater residual accommodation (1.8 ± 0.4 D [atropine] vs 3.1 ± 0.5 D [homatropine]; P < 0.001). A regression formula was derived.
CONCLUSIONS: Of the 2 cycloplegic agents, atropine yielded more consistent results than homatropine; however atropine had a relatively slow onset and prolonged effect. Our regression formula may make it possible to derive atropine-like results while using the clinically more versatile homatropine.