Comparative study of objective and subjective parameters of accommodation in children with myopia

Abstract

AIM: The study aims to compare the results of objective parameters such as autorefractometers of the open field Grand Seiko and closed field TONOREF III. and the subjective parameters such as the positive of relative accommodation (PRA) and the amplitude of accommodation (AA).

MATERIAL AND METHODS: 30 children (60 eyes) with low and moderate myopia (on average -2.96 ± 0.17 D) aged from 8 to 12 years (on average 10.04 ± 0.24 years) were examined. Subjective (PRA, AA) and objective parameters of binocular adaptation (BAO) and monocular adaptation (MAO) response on the Grand Seiko Binocular Open Field Autorefkeratometer WR - 5500K (Japan) and the AA on the automatic refractokeratotonometer pakhimetre TONOREF III (Nidek, Japan) were determined.

RESULTS: The average of BAO and MAO at 33 cm was -1.93 ± 0.04 D and 1.86 ± 0.05 D, respectively. The average PRA was 1.5 ± 0.16 D. The objectively measured average AA was 5.25 ± 0.4 D. The average minimum AA value was -2.86 ± 0.16 D, and the average maximum value was 8.11 ± 0.46 D. The subjective AA on the “Iksar” device was on average 4.17 ± 0.43 D; A_min, on average -3.77 ± 0.26 D; A_max, on average was -7.94 ± 0.59 D.

CONCLUSION: The objective and subjective measurements of AA produced comparable results. BAO and MAO reflected other characteristics of accommodation, different from its amplitude, and characterized the adequacy of the accommodation response to a specific accommodation task. The advantage of objective accommodation is that it is independent of the patient’s responses and intellectual level.

Keywords

myopia / positive relation of accommodation / accommodation amplitude / objective accommodation response

References

[1] Hussaindeen JR, Murali A. Accommodative Insufficiency: Prevalence, Impact and Treatment Options. Clin Optom (Auckl). 2020;12:135–149. doi: 10.2147/OPTO.S224216

[2] Hussaindeen J.R., Murali A. Accommodative Insufficiency: Prevalence, Impact and Treatment Options // Clin Optom (Auckl). 2020. Vol. 12, N. P. 135–149. doi: 10.2147/OPTO.S224216

[3] Bahkir FA, Grandee SS. Impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on digital device-related ocular health. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2020;68(11):2378–2383. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_2306_20

[4] Bahkir F.A., Grandee S.S. Impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on digital device-related ocular health // Indian J Ophthalmol. 2020. Vol. 68, N 11. P. 2378–2383. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_2306_20

[5] Win-Hall DM, Ostrin LA, Kasthurirangan S, Glasser A. Objective accommodation measurement with the Grand Seiko and Hartinger coincidence refractometer. Optom Vis Sci. 2007;84(9):879–887. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181559ace

[6] Win-Hall D.M., Ostrin L.A., Kasthurirangan S., Glasser A. Objective accommodation measurement with the Grand Seiko and Hartinger coincidence refractometer // Optom Vis Sci. 2007. Vol. 84, N 9. P. 879–887. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181559ace

[7] Tarutta EP, Filinova OB, Tarasova NA. New methods for objective accommodation. Russian pediatric ophthalmology. 2012;(1):45–48 (In Russ).

[8] Тарутта Е.П., Филинова О.Б., Тарасова Н.А. Новые методы объективной аккомодометрии // Российская педиатрическая офтальмология. 2012. № 1. С. 45–48.

[9] Win-Hall DM, Houser J, Glasser A. Static and dynamic accommodation measured using the WAM-5500 Autorefractor. Optom Vis Sci. 2010;87(11):873–882. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181f6f98f

[10] Win-Hall D.M., Houser J., Glasser A. Static and dynamic accommodation measured using the WAM-5500 Autorefractor // Optom Vis Sci. 2010. Vol. 87, N 11. P. 873–882. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181f6f98f

[11] Weng CC, Hwang DK, Liu CJ. Repeatability of the amplitude of accommodation measured by a new generation autorefractor. PLoS One. 2020;15(1):e0224733. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224733

[12] Weng C.C., Hwang D.K., Liu C.J. Repeatability of the amplitude of accommodation measured by a new generation autorefractor // PLoS One. 2020. Vol. 15, N 1. P. e0224733. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224733

[13] Makhova MV, Strakhov VV. Interaction of accommodative and subjective diagnostic criteria of accommodation disorders. Russian Ophthalmological Journal. 2019;12(3):13–19. (In Russ). doi: 10.21516/2072-0076-2019-12-3-13-19

[14] Махова М.В., Страхов В.В. Взаимосвязь аккомодографических и субъективных критериев различных видов нарушений аккомодации // Российский офтальмологический журнал. 2019. Т. 12, № 3. С. 13–19. doi: 10.21516/2072-0076-2019-12-3-13-19

[15] Kubota M, Kubota S, Kobashi H, et al. Difference in Pupillary Diameter as an Important Factor for Evaluating Amplitude of Accommodation: A Prospective Observational Study. J Clin Med. 2020;9(8). doi: 10.3390/jcm9082678

[16] Kubota M., Kubota S., Kobashi H., et al. Difference in Pupillary Diameter as an Important Factor for Evaluating Amplitude of Accommodation: A Prospective Observational Study // J Clin Med. 2020. Vol. 9, N 8. P. doi: 10.3390/jcm9082678

[17] Anderson HA, Stuebing KK. Subjective versus objective accommodative amplitude: preschool to presbyopia. Optom Vis Sci. 2014;91(11):1290–1301. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000402

[18] Anderson H.A., Stuebing K.K. Subjective versus objective accommodative amplitude: preschool to presbyopia // Optom Vis Sci. 2014. Vol. 91, N 11. P. 1290–1301. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000402

[19] Gambra E, Sawides L, Dorronsoro C, Marcos S. Accommodative lag and fluctuations when optical aberrations are manipulated. J Vis. 2009;9(6):4 1–15. doi: 10.1167/9.6.4

[20] Gambra E., Sawides L., Dorronsoro C., Marcos S. Accommodative lag and fluctuations when optical aberrations are manipulated // J Vis. 2009. Vol. 9, N 6. P. 4 1–15. doi: 10.1167/9.6.4

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Eco-Vector