Distribution Analysis of Refraction Defects in Prescriptions in Terms of Opticians: the Case of Karaman Province

Yıl 2022, , 244 - 253, 30.12.2022

Özge Kol

https://doi.org/10.52976/vansaglik.1076567

Öz

The aim of this study is to analyze and evaluate refraction errors in prescriptions written in foundation and state hospitals in Karaman province. 213 people who applied to an ophthalmologist in the province of Karaman and were given prescriptions were included in the study. Of the 213 people included in the study; 126 (59.15%) are women, 87 (40.85%) are men. Near and far eyeglasses data on prescriptions were divided into 7 groups as simple myopia, simple hyperopia, simple myopic astigmatism, simple hyperopia astigmatism, composite myopic astigmatism, compound hyperopia astigmatism, and mixed astigmatism. In the near-eyeglass right glass refraction defects analysis in the research; simple hypermetropia was the most common with 22.06%, while the least common simple myopic astigmatism was detected with 0.94%. In the near eyeglass left eyeglass refraction defects analysis; while mixed astigmatism was the most common with 22.53%, it was determined that it was the least seen simple myopic astigmatism with 0.47%. In the far eyeglass right glass refraction defects analysis; compound myopic astigmatism was the most common with 30.98%, and the least common was simple hypermetropic astigmatism with 2.35%. In the far eyeglass left eyeglass refraction defects analysis; compound myopic astigmatism was the most common with 29.11%, while the least common was simple hypermetropic astigmatism with 2.35%. The research is important due to it is the first study to examine the refractive error distribution in Karaman.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Optician, Prescription, Refraction Defects, Near Eyelasses, Distance Eyeglasses.

Teşekkür

I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Süleyman YAMAN, whose scientific consultancy I benefited from during the study for his patience and tolerance while conveying his experience.

Optisyenlik Açısıdan Reçetelerdeki Refraksiyon Kusurlarının Dağılım Analizi: Karaman İli Örneği

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı Karaman ilindeki vakıf ve devlet hastanelerinde yazılan reçetelerdeki kırma kusurlarının analiz edilerek değerlendirilmesidir. Araştırmaya Karaman ilinde göz doktoruna başvurarak adına reçete düzenlenen 213 kişi dâhil edildi. Araştırmaya dâhil edilen 213 kişiden; 126’sı (%59,15) kadın, 87’si (%40,85) ise erkektir. Reçetelerdeki yakın ve uzak gözlük verileri; basit miyop, basit hipermetropi, basit miyop astigmatizma, basit hipermetrop astigmatizma, kompoze miyop astigmatizma, kompoze hipermetrop astigmatizma, mikst astigmatizma olmak üzere 7 gruba ayrılarak analiz edildi. Araştırmada yakın gözlük sağ cam refraksiyon kusurları analizinde; basit hipermetropi %22,06 ile en sık görülürken %0,94 ile en az görülen basit miyop astigmatizma tespit edilmiştir. Yakın gözlük sol cam refraksiyon kusurları analizinde; mikst astigmatizma %22,53 ile en sık görülürken, %0,47 ile en az görülen basit miyop astigmatizma olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Uzak gözlük sağ cam refraksiyon kusurları analizinde; bileşik miyop astigmatizma %30,98 ile en sık görülürken, en az görülen %2,35 ile basit hipermetrop astigmatizma tespit edilmiştir. Uzak gözlük sol cam refraksiyon kusurları analizinde; bileşik miyop astigmatizma %29,11 ile en sık görülürken en az görülen %2,35 ile basit hipermetrop astigmatizma tespit edilmiştir. Araştırma, Karaman ilindeki kırma kusuru dağılımını geniş çapta inceleyen ilk araştırma olması açısından önemlidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Optisyenlik, Reçete, Refraksiyon Kusurları, Yakın Gözlük, Uzak Gözlük.

Kaynakça

• Acer EG (2021). Investigation of the importance of pupillary distance and mounting height values in patients' refraction errors and montage of spectacle lenses. Kırşehir Ahi Evran University Journal of Health Sciences Institute, 1(1), 1-12.
• Bengisu Ü (1998). Eye Diseases (4th ed.). Ankara: Palme Publishing.
• Bourne RR, Dineen BP, Ali SM, Noorul Huq DM, Johnson GJ (2004). Prevalence of refractive error in Bangladeshi adults: results of the National Blindness and Low Vision Survey of Bangladesh. Ophthalmology, 111(6), 1150–1160.
• Büyüköztürk Ş, Kılıç Çakmak E, Akgün ÖE, Karadeniz Ş, Demirel F (2012). Scientific Research Methods (11th ed.). Ankara: PegemA Publishing.
• Chang JX, Zhang DD, Lin Y, Liu B, Lu F, Tang X et al (2008) Linkage analysis of one family with autosomal dominant high myopia. Zhonghua Yi Xue Yi Chuan Xue Za Zhi, 25(4): 424-426.
• Cumurcu T , Düz C , Gündüz A , Doğanay S (2011). Frequency and Distribution of Refractive Errors in Primary School Students in Malatya and Its Surroundings. Journal of Turgut Ozal Medical Center, 18(3): 145-148.
• Dandona R, Dandona L (2001). Refractive error blindness. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation Journal, 79 (3), 237–243.
• Davidson S, Quinn GE (2011). The impact of pediatric vision disorders in adulthood. Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics,127(2): 334–339.
• Donders FC (1864). On the anomalies of accommodation and refraction of the eye. London, UK: New Sydenham Society.
• Ergin A (2001). Eye scan results in first grades of Kırıkkale central primary school. Turkish Journal of Clinical Medical Sciences, 21(3):166-172.
• Güler C. (2001). Refractive Condition of the Eye, Examination Methods. In: Aydın P, Akova YA eds. Basic Eye Diseases (1th ed.). Ankara: Güneş Bookstore, 93-102.
• Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 64-65.
• Miller KM, Albert DL, Asbell PA, Atebara NH, Schechter RJ, Wang MX, Morse C (2008-2009). American Academy of Ophthalmology. Basic and Clinical Science Course. Optics of the Human Eye. San Francisco: California. Section 3, 117-118.
• Mutlu HK (2017). Determination of possible defects of optical glasses according to prescription, evaluation in terms of physics and optics. Master's thesis. Osmangazi University, Eskişehir.
• O’dwyer P, Akova Y (2011). Basic Eye Diseases. Ankara: Güneş Medicine Publishing.
• Rahi JS, Tadić V, Keeley S, Hundt G. (2010). Capturing children and young people's perspectives to identify the content for a novel vision-related quality of life instrument. American Academy of Ophthalmology, 118(5): 819-824.
• Snell, RS (2012). Clinical Anatomy by Regions. 9th ed., Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Health, 472-525.
• Tang Q, Hoffer KJ, Olson MD, Miller KM (2009). Accuracy of Scheimpflug Holladay equivalent keratometry readings after corneal refractive surgery. Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, 35(7): 1198–1203.
• Tezcan S, Aslan D. A (2000). Review of the prevalence studies of refractive errors and other eye pathologies conducted in some primary schools in Ankara between 1991-1999. Journal of Turgut Özal Medical Center, 7(3), 194-200.
• Wong TY, Foster PJ, Hee J, et al. (2000). Prevalence and risk factors for refractive errors in adult Chinese in Singapore. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science Journal, 41(9), 2486–2494.
• Yanoff M, Duker J (2014). Ophthalmology. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders, 46- 51.