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.
Highlights
The reproducible recording of ocular rotation is essential to the diagnosis and management of ocular motility disorders
Ocular motility is important for visual function, as accurate eye movements are essential to maintain the image of the object on the fovea thereby ensuring good visual acuity.[1]
This review has described kinetic and static methods that have been used to measure ocular rotations
Summary
The reproducible recording of ocular rotation is essential to the diagnosis and management of ocular motility disorders. It is of particular importance in neurogenic, myogenic and mechanical restrictions. Ocular motility is important for visual function, as accurate eye movements are essential to maintain the image of the object on the fovea thereby ensuring good visual acuity.[1]. In the clinical setting the assessment of ocular rotation is primarily performed qualitatively without spectacle correction, the examiner moving a torch from the primary position into the eight positions of gaze while the cover/uncover test is being performed.[2] Ductions are commonly graded using simple scales, such as À4 (i.e. underaction or restriction) to 0 to þ4 (i.e. overaction).[3] Such methods are, prone to standardisation errors because of inter-observer variability, and are less
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
