Review
A comparative review of methods to record ocular rotations
Authors:
Sahira Hanif ,
Department of Orthoptics, North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Warrington
About Sahira
DBO CASE
Fiona J. Rowe,
Directorate of Orthoptics and Vision Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool
About Fiona J.
PhD DBO
Anna R. O’connor
Directorate of Orthoptics and Vision Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool
About Anna R.
PhD BMedSci (Hons)
Abstract
Aim: To review the methods reported for recording ocular rotations.
Methods: A literature-based review from 1899 to 2008 was carried out to enable a comparative discussion on the methods available to record ocular rotations.
Results: The recording of ocular rotations has changed and progressed over the years. Different methods are available that are essentially either kinetic or static. The important factors in evaluating the efficacy of methods for recording ocular rotations are: minimising patient discomfort; maintaining accuracy and minimising variability from head and chin movement; the speed and simplicity of the test, particularly for elderly patients; good repeatability and level of inter- and intra-observer reliability.
Conclusion: No one method has been advocated in the literature as the gold standard. However, clinically the Goldmann perimeter for kinetic recording and the Lees screen for static recording are popular.
How to Cite:
Hanif, S., Rowe, F.J. and O’connor, A.R., 2009. A comparative review of methods to record ocular rotations. British and Irish Orthoptic Journal, 6, pp.47–51. DOI: http://doi.org/10.22599/bioj.8
Published on
01 Aug 2009.
Peer Reviewed
Downloads
