Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol (2014) 252:509–514 DOI 10.1007/s00417-013-2480-7
MISCELLANEOUS
Comparing accommodative function between the dominant and non-dominant eye Hamed Momeni-Moghaddam & Colm McAlinden & Abbas Azimi & Mina Sobhani & Eirini Skiadaresi
Received: 2 July 2013 / Revised: 22 September 2013 / Accepted: 25 September 2013 / Published online: 26 October 2013 # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013
Abstract Background To compare the accommodative amplitude (AA), facility (AF), and lag between dominant and nondominant eyes. Methods Seventy students [mean (SD) age: 21.2 (1.7) years, range 18–25] from Zahedan University of Medical Sciences were selected. Retinoscopy and subjective refraction was used to determine the refractive error. The hole-in-the card method was used to determine eye dominance. The accommodative amplitude (AA) was measured in the dominant and nondominant eye using the push-up method, and accommodative facility (AF) using ±2.00 dioptre flipper lenses at 40 cm. Accommodative lag was determined using monocular estimate method (MEM) retinoscopy at 40 cm. H. Momeni-Moghaddam Health Promotion Research Center, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, Iran C. McAlinden Flinders Medical Centre and Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia C. McAlinden Wenzhou Medical College, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China A. Azimi School of Paramedical Sciences, Mashad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran M. Sobhani Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, Iran E. Skiadaresi Department of Ophthalmology, Singleton Hospital, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board, Sketty Lane, Swansea, UK H. Momeni-Moghaddam (*) Razmju Moghaddam Central Laboratory, Kafami Str., Zahedan, Sistanobaluchestan, Iran e-mail: [email protected]
Results The right eye was dominant in 53 subjects (75.7 %). There was no significant difference in refractive error (sphere, cylinder, and spherical equivalent) between dominant and nondominant eyes. The mean (SD) for the AA, AF, and lag in dominant eyes was 12.48 (2.56) dioptres, 12.45 (4.83) cycles per minute, and 0.80 (0.27) dioptres respectively. The mean (SD) for the AA, AF, and lag in non-dominant eyes was 12.16 (2.37) dioptres, 12.20 (4.88) cycles per minute, and 0.83 (0.28) dioptres respectively. The mean (SD) difference in AA, AF, and lag between dominant and non dominant eyes was 0.32 (0.75) dioptres (P =0.001), 0.25 (1.05) cycles per minute (P = 0.04), and −0.02 (0.11) dioptres (P= 0.10) respectively. The AA and AF was statistically better (P 0.05). Conclusion The right eye was dominant in 76 % of subjects. Superior AA and AF was found in the dominant eye as determined by hole-in-the card method in young healthy adults, although these differences are perhaps not of clinical significance (
MISCELLANEOUS
Comparing accommodative function between the dominant and non-dominant eye Hamed Momeni-Moghaddam & Colm McAlinden & Abbas Azimi & Mina Sobhani & Eirini Skiadaresi
Received: 2 July 2013 / Revised: 22 September 2013 / Accepted: 25 September 2013 / Published online: 26 October 2013 # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013
Abstract Background To compare the accommodative amplitude (AA), facility (AF), and lag between dominant and nondominant eyes. Methods Seventy students [mean (SD) age: 21.2 (1.7) years, range 18–25] from Zahedan University of Medical Sciences were selected. Retinoscopy and subjective refraction was used to determine the refractive error. The hole-in-the card method was used to determine eye dominance. The accommodative amplitude (AA) was measured in the dominant and nondominant eye using the push-up method, and accommodative facility (AF) using ±2.00 dioptre flipper lenses at 40 cm. Accommodative lag was determined using monocular estimate method (MEM) retinoscopy at 40 cm. H. Momeni-Moghaddam Health Promotion Research Center, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, Iran C. McAlinden Flinders Medical Centre and Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia C. McAlinden Wenzhou Medical College, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China A. Azimi School of Paramedical Sciences, Mashad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran M. Sobhani Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, Iran E. Skiadaresi Department of Ophthalmology, Singleton Hospital, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board, Sketty Lane, Swansea, UK H. Momeni-Moghaddam (*) Razmju Moghaddam Central Laboratory, Kafami Str., Zahedan, Sistanobaluchestan, Iran e-mail: [email protected]
Results The right eye was dominant in 53 subjects (75.7 %). There was no significant difference in refractive error (sphere, cylinder, and spherical equivalent) between dominant and nondominant eyes. The mean (SD) for the AA, AF, and lag in dominant eyes was 12.48 (2.56) dioptres, 12.45 (4.83) cycles per minute, and 0.80 (0.27) dioptres respectively. The mean (SD) for the AA, AF, and lag in non-dominant eyes was 12.16 (2.37) dioptres, 12.20 (4.88) cycles per minute, and 0.83 (0.28) dioptres respectively. The mean (SD) difference in AA, AF, and lag between dominant and non dominant eyes was 0.32 (0.75) dioptres (P =0.001), 0.25 (1.05) cycles per minute (P = 0.04), and −0.02 (0.11) dioptres (P= 0.10) respectively. The AA and AF was statistically better (P 0.05). Conclusion The right eye was dominant in 76 % of subjects. Superior AA and AF was found in the dominant eye as determined by hole-in-the card method in young healthy adults, although these differences are perhaps not of clinical significance (
