Polaroid photorefractive screening of infants

• Published in: Journal of pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus Vol. 26; no. 5; pp. 254 - 260
• Main Authors: HSU-WINGES, C, HAMER, R. D, NORCIA, A. M, WESEMANN, H, CHAN, C
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Thorofare, NJ Slack 01.09.1989; SLACK INCORPORATED
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; Calibration; Double-Blind Method; Evaluation Studies as Topic; Humans; Infant; Investigative techniques of ocular function and vision; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects); Medical sciences; Photography - instrumentation; Pupil - drug effects; Refraction, Ocular - instrumentation; Refraction, Ocular - methods; Refractive Errors - diagnosis; Vision Screening; Human; Eye; Photography; Screening; Eye disease; Error estimation; Vision; Refractive error; Exploration; Cycloplegia; Child; Comparative study
• ISSN: 0191-3913; 1938-2405
• DOI: 10.3928/0191-3913-19890901-12

We modified a Polaroid SE camera for use as a photoretinoscope. A total of 187 infants between 2 and 18 months of age were photographed using this device. About half of these infants (97) participated in a double blind study in which the results of photorefraction were compared with those of standard cycloplegic retinoscopy. Eighty-three infants were photographed without cycloplegia. Thirty-four infants were photographed while cyclopleged. Photographs were evaluated for significant refractive errors and other ocular abnormalities. The effectiveness of the camera system to screen for significant refractive errors without the use of cycloplegia was assessed. Infants were identified to be at risk by photorefraction if, in any photograph, a hyperopic bright crescent calculated to be greater than or equal to +1.25 D was present in the pupil. Clinically significant refractive errors were defined by the results of cycloplegic retinoscopy: "at-risk" infants had either 3.5 D or more hyperopia in either eye, or astigmatism in either eye greater than or equal to 2.5 D, or anisometropia greater than or equal to 1.5 D. With these clinical criteria and the above photographic screening criterion, the camera's sensitivity and specificity were 83% and 69%, respectively. The present system compares favorably with earlier, more sophisticated units in alerting practitioners to potentially significant refractive errors in infants. Additionally, as a screening tool, this device offers the benefits of being inexpensive and easy to use, and of providing immediate feedback.