Continuing Education Activity

The fogging procedure is performed during refraction to control accommodation and elicit hidden or latent hyperopia. Proper accommodation control is possibly the most critical factor in the refraction process. Fogging involves a plus power build-up to reduce visual acuity, followed by a stepwise reduction in plus power until there is no further improvement in vision. Fogging is effective irrespective of the inherent refractive state of the eye. This activity reviews the indications, contraindications, procedural technique, and commonly encountered errors of the fogging procedure. The activity also highlights the role of the interprofessional team in caring for patients with refractive errors.

Objectives:

• Describe the influence of accommodation on the refractive states of the eye.
• Apply best practices when employing the fogging technique during subjective refraction.
• Identify strategies to minimize erroneous results obtained during the fogging procedure.
• Develop and effectively employ interprofessional team strategies to improve visual outcomes in patients with refractive errors.

Introduction

Fogging refers to using plus powers to bring the optical point of focus in front of the retina and into the vitreous, ensuring that accommodation is adequately relaxed. Accommodation is the ability of the eye to change its total dioptric power to bring objects at different distances into focus.[1][2]

This ability has been demonstrated in vivo and in vitro.[3][4] The stimulus to accommodation is a retinal blur.[5] When the eye focuses on a near object, a triad of processes occur, including miosis, convergence, and accommodation.[6][7][8]

The principle of fogging involves using spherical powers to create artificial myopia, thereby moving the entire area of focus in front of the retina and creating a situation where an attempt at accommodating will blur the vision, inducing further relaxation of accommodation. Fogging is effective irrespective of the inherent refractive state of the eye.

Proper accommodation control is possibly the most critical factor in the refraction process. The refraction endpoint will fluctuate without proper accommodation control, leading to incorrect spectacle prescriptions.[9] 

This activity details the principles and techniques of the fogging process.

Anatomy and Physiology

The crystalline lens is a spherical-shaped body in the anterior part of the eye. The crystalline lens and cornea account for almost all the refractive powers of the eye.[10] The refractive index of the human crystalline lens ranges from 1.406 to 1.426.[11] The average power of the human crystalline lens is about 24.96 +/- 2.18 diopters (DS).[12]

An Asian study reported the index of power of the crystalline lens to range from 20.34 +/- 2.24 DS in a Chinese population.[13] The crystalline lens can adjust its power by a process known as accommodation. Accomodation is achieved by the actions of the zonular fibers attached to the equator of the crystalline lens. Relaxation of the zonular fibers causes the lens to assume a more spherical dimension, thereby increasing dioptric power. The opposite of this process is called disaccommodation.

Indications

The fogging process is indicated to control accommodation during retinoscopy and in the refraction of pediatric patients who have excessive accommodation.[14][15] Fogging is also indicated in the refraction of patients with asthenopic symptoms, which tend to be more significantly prevalent in hyperopes.[16][15] Fogging is appropriate when the clinician has a reasonable suspicion of a patient with an over-minus prescribed lens correction and in certain cases of ocular deviation and amblyopia.[17][18] Patients with latent hyperopia who report the same visual acuity over a range of powers will also benefit from fogging.[19]

Contraindications

Patients with very poor visual acuity may be unable to differentiate between the pre-fogging and post-fogging vision states. In patients with congenital or acquired aphakia, a condition characterized by the absence of the crystalline lens, there is no fogging effect during subjective refraction. 

The use of cycloplegic medications is common when examining pediatric patients. Cyclopegic medications are temporary acetylcholine receptor antagonists that paralyze the ciliary body rendering the eye unable to accommodate. It is improbable that fogging will affect the ocular accommodative system in an eye with medication-induced relaxed accommodation. 

The binocular balancing step of the refraction process requires that both eyes have similar visual acuity endpoints after monocular subjective refraction. Situations in which visual acuity is significantly different by one or more full lines are a contraindication for the fogging procedure and the entire binocular balancing process.

Equipment

The equipment required for the fogging process includes a trial frame with an occluder, a trial lens set or phoropter, and visual acuity charts. The Bailey-Lovey or Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) visual acuity charts are preferred to eliminate the crowding phenomenon.[20]

Personnel

The fogging process may be performed by an orthoptist, optometrist, or ophthalmologist with the assistance of a refraction nurse. (Image. Optometrist Assessing Subjective Refraction)

Preparation

All necessary equipment used should be cleaned and disinfected before beginning the fogging procedure. The risk of cross-infection has moved some clinicians to develop alternative techniques to the fogging process.[21] Special attention must be paid to the lenses, as a smudged lens will cause the patient to report blurred vision, prolonging the refraction process.

Subjective refraction requires the understanding and participation of the patient. It is imperative that the patient be educated about the appearance of the fogging lenses during the fogging and subjective refraction procedures.

Technique or Treatment

The fogging procedure is performed at three points during the refraction process. During subjective refraction, fogging is performed before retinoscopy and during the initial maximum plus to maximum visual acuity (MPMVA) step. Fogging is also performed during the binocular MPMVA step.

Fogging During the Initial Maximum Plus to Maximum Visual Acuity Step

During the initial MPMVA step, fogging is performed monocularly with the contralateral eye occluded. By convention, the right eye is fogged first, followed by the left. The fogging process is preceded by inserting the objective refraction findings. This could be based on retinoscopy, autorefractometry results, or a former spectacle or contact lens prescription.

Placing sufficient plus power over the objective refraction findings produces fogging images (see Image. The Fogging Process). Historically, +0.75 DS was considered sufficient plus power at this step. However, current practice indicates this plus power may be insufficient to fog certain patients, particularly those with significant latent hyperopia. During this step, it is expected that the visual acuity should be 1 or 2 lines worse than the visual acuity obtained with the objective findings in place.

The patient should read the optotypes on the visual acuity chart stepwise from the largest to the smallest possible. If the patient is sufficiently fogged, the defogging process may begin. If the patient is insufficiently fogged, characterized by the ability to correctly read the optotypes to a level deemed too close to the pre-fogging levels,  the fogging should be increased. Repeat this process until the patient is satisfactorily fogged.  

The defogging process begins with directing the patient's attention to the largest optotype and encouraging him to read downwards as the optotypes transition from larger to smaller ones. The patient should achieve pre-fogging visual acuity. At this time, the reduction of plus spherical power or the addition of minus spherical power in 0.25 DS increments should continue stepwise until the patient reports no change in visual acuity with each incremental dioptric change. If the visual acuity chart contains a 20/20 line, the defogging process can be discontinued once the patients can correctly read all of the optotypes on that line.

Fogging During the Binocular Balancing Step

Binocular balancing tests balance the accommodation during binocular vision. The fogging process is employed in binocular balancing using the modified Humpriss and the Humphriss immediate contrast techniques. 

The distance monocular subjective findings are implemented before the modified Humpriss test is performed. The left eye is traditionally fogged with enough plus power to blur the vision by about three lines worse than the right eye. The examiner then defogs the left eye to its MPMVA. This process is repeated for the left eye with the right eye fogged.

The final prescription obtained is the subjective refraction endpoint.

Future perspectives

Artificial intelligence and machine learning programs have been implemented in different fields of medicine. Many manual techniques can be performed more quickly, accurate, and precisely using modern technology. Studies have shown that refraction results and best-corrected visual acuity determined by manual subjective refraction with fogging were similar to those obtained with algorithm-based methods, which proved significantly faster with statistically similar values.[22] Various modern instruments with automated methods are more accurate and reliable when compared to standard objective techniques in healthy individuals.[23][24] Clinical subjective refraction is needed to confirm automated results, especially in children and individuals with cataracts, astigmatism, and other ocular conditions.[25][26][27]

Complications

There are no known complications of the fogging technique. However, common errors made during the performance of the technique include under- or over-fogging and allowing too much time to pass between the removal and insertion of trial lenses.

Under-fogging occurs when the change in spherical powers is insufficient to adequately reduce visual acuity or keep accommodation in check. When under-fogging occurs, the eye continues to accommodate to bring the conoid of Sturm closer to the retina. Over-fogging occurs in the opposite circumstance. When the spherical powers are more than required, the conoid of Sturn is pushed too far anterior to the retina, and the defogging process becomes unnecessarily prolonged.

Clinical Significance

The refraction process aims to correct ametropia. The dioptric powers of the cornea and the crystalline lens predominately determine the amount of ametropia. The dioptric power of the cornea is fixed. However, the dioptric power of the crystalline lens varies with accommodation, resulting in fluctuating amounts of ametropia that can prolong the refraction process and lead to asthenopic symptoms if the ametropia is not adequately corrected.

At several points during the refraction process, the eye is exposed to different stimuli for accommodation, including the retinoscope light, the occluder, and the testing prisms. This repeated exposure necessitates the fogging carried out at the latter stages of the refraction process during binocular balancing.

Uncorrected hypermetropia or hyperopia can cause headaches, primarily when undiagnosed. The patient with uncorrected hypermetropia without corrective lenses does not complain of decreased vision.[28] Clinicians should request a complete eye examination before neurologically assessing these patients. Fogging can help determine hypermetropic conditions and proper lens prescription, attenuating symptoms in some patients.

Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes

The success of the subjective refraction process depends on the collaboration of the health workers attending to the patient. A patient with high blood sugar is not a good candidate for refraction. The clinical nursing staff should be trained and available to obtain vital signs or capillary blood glucose levels before refraction. The clinicians performing the subjective refraction process should obtain a comprehensive medical history before initiating the refraction process, as certain drugs and foodstuffs affect the accommodative system.[29][30] 

An interprofessional team can help achieve the best possible visual outcomes. Collaboration, shared decision-making with patients and caregivers for minors, and open communication are critical elements for good visual outcomes. Interprofessional patient care must use an integrated care pathway and an evidence-based approach. Earlier correction of hypermetropia and amblyopia results in improved patient prognoses and outcomes. 

Review Questions

• Access free multiple choice questions on this topic.
• Click here for a simplified version.
• Comment on this article.

References

1.

Martinez-Enriquez E, Pérez-Merino P, Velasco-Ocana M, Marcos S. OCT-based full crystalline lens shape change during accommodation in vivo. Biomed Opt Express. 2017 Feb 01;8(2):918-933. [PMC free article: PMC5330589] [PubMed: 28270993]

2.

Pérez-Merino P, Velasco-Ocana M, Martinez-Enriquez E, Marcos S. OCT-based crystalline lens topography in accommodating eyes. Biomed Opt Express. 2015 Dec 01;6(12):5039-54. [PMC free article: PMC4679276] [PubMed: 26713216]

3.

Marussich L, Manns F, Nankivil D, Maceo Heilman B, Yao Y, Arrieta-Quintero E, Ho A, Augusteyn R, Parel JM. Measurement of Crystalline Lens Volume During Accommodation in a Lens Stretcher. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015 Jul;56(8):4239-48. [PMC free article: PMC4502455] [PubMed: 26161985]

4.

Momeni-Moghaddam H, Ng JS, Cesana BM, Yekta AA, Sedaghat MR. Accommodative amplitude using the minus lens at different near distances. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2017 Mar;65(3):223-227. [PMC free article: PMC5426127] [PubMed: 28440251]

5.

Cholewiak SA, Love GD, Banks MS. Creating correct blur and its effect on accommodation. J Vis. 2018 Sep 04;18(9):1. [PMC free article: PMC6126933] [PubMed: 30193343]

6.

Ghoushchi VP, Mompeán J, Prieto PM, Artal P. Binocular dynamics of accommodation, convergence, and pupil size in myopes. Biomed Opt Express. 2021 Jun 01;12(6):3282-3295. [PMC free article: PMC8221970] [PubMed: 34221660]

7.

Goering M, Drennan KB, Moshirfar M. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; Treasure Island (FL): Jul 18, 2023. Convergence Insufficiency. [PubMed: 32119277]

8.

Motlagh M, Geetha R. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; Treasure Island (FL): Nov 15, 2022. Physiology, Accommodation. [PubMed: 31194346]

9.

Richdale K, Bullimore MA, Sinnott LT, Zadnik K. The Effect of Age, Accommodation, and Refractive Error on the Adult Human Eye. Optom Vis Sci. 2016 Jan;93(1):3-11. [PMC free article: PMC4692191] [PubMed: 26703933]

10.

Lu T, Song J, Wu Q, Jiang W, Tian Q, Zhang X, Xu J, Wu J, Hu Y, Sun W, Bi H. Refractive lens power and lens thickness in children (6-16 years old). Sci Rep. 2021 Sep 29;11(1):19284. [PMC free article: PMC8481242] [PubMed: 34588558]

11.

Chang YC, Mesquita GM, Williams S, Gregori G, Cabot F, Ho A, Ruggeri M, Yoo SH, Parel JM, Manns F. In vivo measurement of the human crystalline lens equivalent refractive index using extended-depth OCT. Biomed Opt Express. 2019 Feb 01;10(2):411-422. [PMC free article: PMC6377882] [PubMed: 30800489]

12.

Jongenelen S, Rozema JJ, Tassignon MJ., EVICR.net and Project Gullstrand Study Group. Distribution of the Crystalline Lens Power In Vivo as a Function of Age. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015 Nov;56(12):7029-35. [PubMed: 26523387]

13.

He J, Lu L, He X, Xu X, Du X, Zhang B, Zhao H, Sha J, Zhu J, Zou H, Xu X. The Relationship between Crystalline Lens Power and Refractive Error in Older Chinese Adults: The Shanghai Eye Study. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0170030. [PMC free article: PMC5256932] [PubMed: 28114313]

14.

Chiu NN, Rosenfield M, Wong LC. Effect of contralateral fog during refractive error assessment. J Am Optom Assoc. 1997 May;68(5):305-8. [PubMed: 9170797]

15.

Esteves Leandro J, Meira J, Ferreira CS, Santos-Silva R, Freitas-Costa P, Magalhães A, Breda J, Falcão-Reis F. Adequacy of the Fogging Test in the Detection of Clinically Significant Hyperopia in School-Aged Children. J Ophthalmol. 2019;2019:3267151. [PMC free article: PMC6701401] [PubMed: 31467692]

16.

Hashemi H, Saatchi M, Yekta A, Ali B, Ostadimoghaddam H, Nabovati P, Aghamirsalim M, Khabazkhoob M. High Prevalence of Asthenopia among a Population of University Students. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2019 Oct-Dec;14(4):474-482. [PMC free article: PMC6825687] [PubMed: 31875103]

17.

Economides JR, Adams DL, Horton JC. Bilateral Occlusion Reduces the Ocular Deviation in Intermittent Exotropia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2021 Jan 04;62(1):6. [PMC free article: PMC7794258] [PubMed: 33393972]

18.

Li T, Qureshi R, Taylor K. Conventional occlusion versus pharmacologic penalization for amblyopia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Aug 28;8(8):CD006460. [PMC free article: PMC6713317] [PubMed: 31461545]

19.

Kaur K, Gurnani B. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; Treasure Island (FL): Jun 11, 2023. Subjective Refraction Techniques. [PubMed: 35593807]

20.

Lovie-Kitchin JE. Is it time to confine Snellen charts to the annals of history? Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2015 Nov;35(6):631-6. [PubMed: 26497296]

21.

Pérez González D, Loewenstein A, Gaton DD. Avoiding Diagnostic Lens Fogging During the COVID-19 Era. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:4507-4509. [PMC free article: PMC7769927] [PubMed: 33384557]

22.

Venkataraman AP, Sirak D, Brautaset R, Dominguez-Vicent A. Evaluation of the Performance of Algorithm-Based Methods for Subjective Refraction. J Clin Med. 2020 Sep 29;9(10) [PMC free article: PMC7599794] [PubMed: 33003297]

23.

Otero C, Aldaba M, Pujol J. Clinical evaluation of an automated subjective refraction method implemented in a computer-controlled motorized phoropter. J Optom. 2019 Apr-Jun;12(2):74-83. [PMC free article: PMC6449872] [PubMed: 30389250]

24.

Venkataraman AP, Brautaset R, Domínguez-Vicent A. Effect of six different autorefractor designs on the precision and accuracy of refractive error measurement. PLoS One. 2022;17(11):e0278269. [PMC free article: PMC9704684] [PubMed: 36441778]

25.

Veselý P, Petrová S, Beneš P. Sensitivity and specificity in methods for examination of the eye astigmatism. Cesk Slov Oftalmol. 2020 Winter;75(6):310-314. [PubMed: 32911946]

26.

Wisse RPL, Simons RWP, van der Vossen MJB, Muijzer MB, Soeters N, Nuijts RMMA, Godefrooij DA. Clinical Evaluation and Validation of the Dutch Crosslinking for Keratoconus Score. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2019 Jun 01;137(6):610-616. [PMC free article: PMC6567860] [PubMed: 30920597]

27.

Stahl MH, Kumar A, Lambert R, Stroud M, Macleod D, Bastawrous A, Peto T, Burton MJ. Antarctica eye study: a prospective study of the effects of overwintering on ocular parameters and visual function. BMC Ophthalmol. 2018 Jun 25;18(1):149. [PMC free article: PMC6019514] [PubMed: 29940901]

28.

Majumdar S, Tripathy K. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; Treasure Island (FL): Aug 25, 2023. Hyperopia. [PubMed: 32809551]

29.

Kosehira M, Machida N, Kitaichi N. A 12-Week-Long Intake of Bilberry Extract (Vaccinium myrtillus L.) Improved Objective Findings of Ciliary Muscle Contraction of the Eye: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Group Comparison Trial. Nutrients. 2020 Feb 25;12(3) [PMC free article: PMC7146147] [PubMed: 32106548]

30.

Kim J, Kang H, Choi H, Jo A, Oh DR, Kim Y, Im S, Lee SG, Jeong KI, Ryu GC, Choi C. Aqueous Extract of Perilla frutescens var. acuta Relaxes the Ciliary Smooth Muscle by Increasing NO/cGMP Content In Vitro and In Vivo. Molecules. 2018 Jul 19;23(7) [PMC free article: PMC6100439] [PubMed: 30029520]

31.

Anisimova NS, Anisimov SI, Danilchenko MI. [Pseudo-accommodative intraocular lenses]. Vestn Oftalmol. 2022;138(5):111-117. [PubMed: 36288425]

Disclosure: Mutali Musa declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.

Disclosure: Marco Zeppieri declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.