Peripheral Refraction Using Ancillary Retinoscope Component (P-ARC).

Purpose: To assess the agreement of retinoscope-based peripheral refraction techniques with the criterion standard open-field autorefractor. Methods: Fifty young adults (mean age, 24 ± 3 years) participated in this study. Two masked, experienced senior examiners carried out central refraction and peripheral refraction at the temporal 22° (T22°) and nasal 22° (N22°) eccentricities. Peripheral refraction techniques were (a) peripheral refraction using ancillary retinoscope component (P-ARC), (b) retinoscopy with eye rotation, and (c) open-field autorefractor. Peripheral refraction with retinoscopy values was compared with an open-field autorefractor (Shinn Nippon NVision-K) to assess the agreement. All measurements were taken from the right eye under noncycloplegic conditions. Results: The mean difference ±95% limits of agreement of peripheral refraction values obtained using P-ARC from T22° (+0.11 diopters [D] ± 1.20 D; P = 0.20) or N22° (+0.13 D ± 1.16 D; P = 0.13) were comparable with open-field autorefractor. The eye rotation technique compared to autorefractor showed a significant difference for T22° (+0.30 D ± 1.26 D; P = 0.002); however, there was an agreement for N22° (+0.14 D ± 1.16 D; P = 0.10). With respect to the identification of peripheral refraction patterns, examiners were able to identify relative peripheral hyperopia in most of the participants (77%). Conclusions: Peripheral refraction with P-ARC was comparable with open-field autorefractor at T22° and N22° eccentricities. Peripheral retinoscopy techniques can be another approache for estimating and identifying peripheral refraction and its patterns in a regular clinical setting. Translational Relevance: Retinoscope with P-ARC has high potential to guide and enable eye care practitioners to perform peripheral refraction and identify peripheral refraction patterns for effective myopia management.

Near work, light levels and dioptric profile - Which factor dominates and influences the short-term changes in axial length?

PURPOSE: Given the agonistic nature of near work to promote axial elongation and the antagonistic nature of time outdoors to prevent myopia, we aimed to investigate the following: (a) how the short-term effect of near work performed outdoors (Experiment 1) influences axial length and (b) how near work performed in two different dioptric profiles (uncluttered and cluttered) alters the changes in central axial length (Experiment 2). METHODS: Forty-six adults (age range: 19-32 years) participated in the study. In Experiment 1, 22 participants completed a 15-min distance task and a reading task in both the outdoor (~30,000 lux) and indoor (~70 lux) locations. In Experiment 2, 24 participants performed the same reading task at a study desk in uncluttered and cluttered reading environments. Pre- and post-task ocular biometry measurements were performed for each session using a non-contact biometer. RESULTS: In Experiment 1, a significant increase in axial length from baseline was found after performing reading tasks in both outdoor (mean ± SEM: +12.3 ± 3.4 µm, p = 0.001) and indoor locations (+11.9 ± 3.1 µm, p = 0.001). In Experiment 2, axial length increased significantly from baseline to post reading task, in both uncluttered (+17.9 ± 3.5 µm, p < 0.001) and cluttered reading environments (+19.2 ± 2.9 µm, p < 0.001). No significant changes in axial length were observed either between outdoor and indoor locations (p = 0.92) or between the uncluttered and cluttered reading environment (p = 0.75). CONCLUSION: Independent of light intensity (outdoor or indoor location) and dioptric profile of the near-work environment (uncluttered or cluttered), a 15-min reading task led to a significant increase in axial length. While the long-term effects of these findings need to be evaluated, practitioners should emphasise how near work can reduce the beneficial effects of time outdoors, while providing recommendations related to time outdoors for myopia control.

Eye injuries in badminton - players' perspective toward the usage of personal protective equipment.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a survey between April to September 2021 to understand the perspective of badminton players on the usage of personal protective equipment to avoid eye injuries. METHODS: The survey was conducted online. It was disseminated through various social media platforms and via e-mail. The survey was initially shared with university-level badminton players. Both recreational and professional players were included. They were further encouraged to circulate the survey questionnaire among their colleagues. RESULTS: In total, the survey received 372 responses. After removing possible duplicates and incomplete responses (n = 28), 92.5% (n = 344) of the responses were included in the final analysis. Among the 344 included responses, recreational and professional players accounted for 77.6% (n = 267) and 22.4% (n = 77), respectively. The mean age ± SD of the recreational and professional players were 24.1 ± 6.3 years (range 14-60 years) and 25.7 ± 6.0 years (range 14-61 years), respectively. A significant difference was noted for self-reported eye injuries between recreational and professional players while playing badminton (χ2 value = 5.321, p = 0.02). Among the recreational and professional players, 93.6% (n = 250) and 88.3% (n = 68) did not use protective eyewear while playing badminton. Professional players were at higher risk of eye injuries than recreational players (OR = 2.9, 95% CI = 1.1-7.8). CONCLUSION: The majority of badminton players in both groups agreed that PPE usage would lower the risk of sustaining eye injuries; however, they are ambiguous about the usage of protective eyewear. In contrast, players with self-reported eye injuries were aware of its impacts and encouraged the usage of PPEs associated with badminton. Further studies are warranted to understand and educate badminton players about the causes and impacts of eye injuries in badminton.