Relative Proportion Of Different Types Of Refractive Errors In Subjects Seeking Laser Vision Correction

  • Althomali T
7Citations
Citations of this article
60Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background Refractive errors are a form of optical defect affecting more than 2.3 billion people worldwide. As refractive errors are a major contributor of mild to moderate vision impairment, assessment of their relative proportion would be helpful in the strategic planning of health programs. Purpose To determine the pattern of the relative proportion of types of refractive errors among the adult candidates seeking laser assisted refractive correction in a private clinic setting in Saudi Arabia. Methods The clinical charts of 687 patients (1374 eyes) with mean age 27.6 ± 7.5 years who desired laser vision correction and underwent a pre-LASIK work-up were reviewed retrospectively. Refractive errors were classified as myopia, hyperopia and astigmatism. Manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) was applied to define refractive errors. Outcome Measures Distribution percentage of different types of refractive errors; myopia, hyperopia and astigmatism. Results The mean spherical equivalent for 1374 eyes was -3.11 ± 2.88 D. Of the total 1374 eyes, 91.8% (n = 1262) eyes had myopia, 4.7% (n = 65) eyes had hyperopia and 3.4% (n = 47) had emmetropia with astigmatism. Distribution percentage of astigmatism (cylinder error of ≥ 0.50 D) was 78.5% (1078/1374 eyes); of which % 69.1% (994/1374) had low to moderate astigmatism and 9.4% (129/1374) had high astigmatism. Conclusion and Relevance Of the adult candidates seeking laser refractive correction in a private setting in Saudi Arabia, myopia represented greatest burden with more than 90% myopic eyes, compared to hyperopia in nearly 5% eyes. Astigmatism was present in more than 78% eyes.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Althomali, T. A. (2018). Relative Proportion Of Different Types Of Refractive Errors In Subjects Seeking Laser Vision Correction. The Open Ophthalmology Journal, 12(1), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874364101812010053

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free