American Orthoptic Journal Email Content Delivery
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Amer. Orthoptic Jrnl. 54(1):125-132 (2004); doi:10.3368/aoj.54.1.125
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jackson, J. H.
Right arrow Articles by Arnoldi, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content

The Gradient AC/A Ratio: What’s Really Normal?

Jorie Hart Jackson, C.O. and Kyle Arnoldi, C.O., C.O.M.T.

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Jorie Hart Jackson, C.O., Kellogg Eye Center—Pediatric Clinic, Univ. of Michigan, 1000 Wall St., Ann Arbor, MI 48105. email: joriej{at}umich.edu

The two most commonly used methods for determining the AC/A ratio are the Gradient Method and the Clinical Method. Though both methods are simple, practical, and often used interchangeably, they are really quite different. The Gradient AC/A measures the amount of convergence generated by a diopter of accommodative effort, while the Clinical Method detects the presence of a distance-near disparity of 10 or more prism diopters of esotropia. The purpose of this prospective study was to compare the Gradient and Clinical AC/A in 69 consecutive patients presenting with acquired nonparalytic esotropia. In addition, two methods of calculating the Gradient AC/A were compared: "minus" AC/A in which accommodation (and therefore accommodative convergence) is stimulated, and "plus" AC/A in which accommodation (and accommodative convergence) is relaxed. Mean Gradient AC/A for patients with a normal Clinical AC/A was 2:1, below the range traditionally thought of as normal. Mean Gradient AC/A for patients with a high Clinical AC/A was 5:1. Forty-four percent of those with a high Clinical AC/A had a normal or low Gradient AC/A, suggestive of nonaccommodative convergence excess. Mean Gradient AC/A with plus lenses was statistically identical to the AC/A with the minus lens method.

Key words: accommodative convergence, AC/A ratio, esotropia, fixation disparity







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

Copyright 2004 by The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System