Purpose: To compare the tentative near add determined using four common procedures (amplitude of accommodation, NRA/PRA, age expected addition, binocular fused cross-cylinder test) with the final addition prescribed in presbyopic patients.
Methods: Two hundred healthy subjects with a mean age of 48.92 years (range 40 to 64 years) were studied. Tentative near additions were determined using four different techniques: amplitude of accommodation (AA), age-expected add, binocular fused cross-cylinder (BCC), and balance of negative and positive relative accommodation (NRA/PRA). The power of the add was then refined to arrive at the final add.
Results: The mean tentative near adds were lower than the final add for every method. These biases were small in clinical terms (less than 0.25 D) with the exception of the AA procedure (0.34 D). The intervals between the 95% limits of agreement differed substantially and were always lower than ±0.50 D.
Conclusion: Among the methods examined here, the binocular fused cross-cylinder technique produced results that correlated best with the final addition. The coefficient of agreements (COA) detected suggests that every tentative addition should be adjusted according to the particular needs of the patient.
Similar Articles: Near Addition
Comparing methods of determining addition in presbyopes.Clin Exp Optom. 2008 May;91(3):313-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1444-0938.2007.00159.x.PMID: 18399801
Age and the amplitude of accommodation measured using dynamic retinoscopy.Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2016 Jan;36(1):5-12. doi: 10.1111/opo.12244. Epub 2015 Sep 9.PMID: 26353999
Developments in the correction of presbyopia I: spectacle and contact lenses.Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2014 Jan;34(1):8-29. doi: 10.1111/opo.12091. Epub 2013 Nov 10.PMID: 24205890 Review.
An evaluation of estimation methods for determining addition in presbyopes.Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2013 Jul-Aug;76(4):218-20. doi: 10.1590/s0004-27492013000400005.PMID: 24061831 Clinical Trial.
Developments in the correction of presbyopia II: surgical approaches.Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2014 Jul;34(4):397-426. doi: 10.1111/opo.12129. Epub 2014 Apr 10.PMID: 24716827 Review.