ABSTRACT
OBJETIVO: O objetivo do estudo é realizar as medidas da Distância Interpupilar (DIP) entre a régua milimetrada e o autorrefrator e comparar os resultados entre si. MÉTODOS: Cento e trinta e cinco pacientes foram submetidos à avaliação da DIP. Cada paciente foi examinado pelo mesmo examinador, com dois métodos: régua milimetrada e autorrefrator. RESULTADOS: Houve boa concordância entre as medidas apuradas pelos dois métodos, não apresentando diferença estatísticamente significante entre as médias e variabilidades. CONCLUSÃO: A inexatidão presente no método da régua milimetrada pode responder pelos casos com diferenças clinicamente significantes, porém proporcionalmente estes casos não invalidam a reprodutibilidade do autorrefrator.
PURPOSE: There are several methods to measure the Interpupilary Distance (IPD), but the method used in most office is the milimetric ruler. Currently, the autorrefractor is used routinely to find for the subjective evaluation of the refractive error, but the IPD from the autorrefractor is often not compared with the traditional method of measurement.The objective of the study is to achieve the measures of IPD between the two methods and compare the results with each other. METHODS: One hundred and thirty-five patients underwent the assessment of the DIP. Each patient was examined by the same examiner, with two methods: milimetric ruler and autorrefractor. RESULTS: There was good agreement between the measures cleared by the two methods, showing no statistically significant difference between mean and variability. CONCLUSION: The inaccuracy in the method of the present milimetric ruler can answer the cases with clinically significant differences, however proportionately these cases do not invalidate the reproducibility of the autorrefractor.