Refractional astigmatism prevalence and its relationship with grating acuity in children 2 to 36 months of age
Purpose: To evaluate refractional astigmatism prevalence and its relationship with grating acuity in a cohort of non-verbal children. Methods: 482 normal children, aged from 2 to 36 months, were submitted to ophthalmological examination. Fourteen subjects were excluded due to ocular disease and the...
| Autores: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2006 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Recursos: | Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
| Repositorio: | Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
| Idioma: | portugués |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/224773 |
| Acesso em linha: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0004-27492006000300015 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/224773 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palavra-chave: | Astigmatism Child Prevalence Visual acuity/methods |
| Resumo: | Purpose: To evaluate refractional astigmatism prevalence and its relationship with grating acuity in a cohort of non-verbal children. Methods: 482 normal children, aged from 2 to 36 months, were submitted to ophthalmological examination. Fourteen subjects were excluded due to ocular disease and the sample remained with 468 subjects (936 eyes); 230 (49%) males e 238 (51%) females. Grating acuity was assessed binocularly and monocularly with Teller acuity cards. All children underwent eye examination including cycloplegic retinoscopy and fundus by indirect ophthalmoscopy. Results: Astigmatism was found in 222 (47.43%) of the children, with the hyperopic and with the rule types most frequently found in all ages. Concerning magnitude, this condition was equal or greater than 1.00 cylindric diopter in 24.35% of the children; equal or greater than 2.00 cylindric diopter in 5.55%; lower than 1.00 in 26.92% and between 1.00 and 2.00 in 18.73%. Grating acuity was normal in 219 of the subjects, despite magnitude, type and orientation of astigmatism. Conclusion: Visual acuity assessed by the acuity card procedure was not influenced by astigmatism. |
|---|