This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (6)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Ophthalmological Disorders, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic

Burton J. Kushner, MD

Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118:946-950.

Objectives  To determine if the cervical range of motion (CROM) device, an instrument designed to assess the range of motion in the cervical spine, may be suited for accurately quantifying the magnitude of a patient's abnormal head posture, limitation of ductions, or range of single binocular vision at distance fixation.

Methods  The CROM device was used to measure abnormal head postures in 10 subjects and limitations of ductions in 12 patients by 2 masked observers. In addition, it was used to test the diplopia field in 17 patients at one third of a meter and 6 m. These findings were compared with a standard diplopia field performed on a Goldmann perimeter.

Results  For 10 subjects with abnormal head postures, the findings of the 2 observers had a mean±SD difference of 1.0°±0.7° (P=.15, paired t test). For the assessment of limitations of ductions, the findings of the 2 observers had a mean±SD difference of 1.1°±2.6° (P=.17, paired t test). For the 17 patients undergoing diplopia field testing, the results obtained on the Goldmann perimeter and with CROM device at the same test distance were essentially identical (mean±SD difference of 1.3°±0.95°; P=.88, paired t test); however, there was a significant difference between the results at one third of a meter and 6 m (mean±SD difference of 6.0°±1.1° for esotropic patients [P=.001]; mean±SD difference of 6.0°±2.6° for exotropic patients [P=.002]).

Conclusion  The CROM device seems to be suitable for testing abnormal head postures, limitations of ductions, and the range of single binocular vision.

From the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
The author has no financial interest in the cervical range of motion device.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Comparing Ocular Muscle Limitation Tests for Clinical Trial Use
Kupersmith and Fazzone
Arch Ophthalmol 2004;122:347-348.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT