Effect of laser in situ keratomileusis on accommodation

Abstract

The accommodative function before and after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) was observed, and the effect of LASIk on accommodation was investigated. In a prospective clinical trial, 48 myopic patients (96 eyes) subject to bilateral LASIK in Refractive Surgery Center, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology (China) from March 2006 to June 2006 were selected and studied. Refractions, accommodative range, amplitude of accommodative response and high frequency component (HFC) of accommodative microfluctuations were measured with NEDIK-730A before and one week and 30 days after operation. Dominant and non-dominant eyes were determined by hole-in-card method. It was found that all of the operative eyes showed an uncorrected visual acuity of 0.8 or better one week postoperatively, and 1.0 or better 30 days postoperatively. Compared with those preoperatively, accommodative range and HFC had no significant difference at first week and 30th day after operation in both dominant eyes and non-dominant eyes (P>0.05), but there was a significant difference in the amplitude of accommodative response/accommodative stimulus ratio (A/S) after operation (P<0.01), and no significant difference was found in accommodation between one week and 30 days postoperation. No ocular dominance’s change was noted. There was no significant difference in accommodative function between dominant eyes and non-dominant eyes. It was suggested that LASIK produced no significant effect on accommodation.

Keywords

laser in situ keratomileusis / accommodation / dominant eye

References

[1] KymionisG. D., TsiklisN. S., AstyrakakisN., et al.. Eleven-year follow-up of laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2007, 33(2): 191-196

[2] LeeA. G., LinD. J., KaufmanM., et al.. Optic neuropathy associated with laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2000, 26(11): 1581-1584

[3] ChanJ. W., EdeardsM. H., WooG. C., et al.. Contrast sensitivity after laser in situ keralomileusis one-year follow-up. J Cstaract Refract Surg, 2002, 28: 1774-1779

[4] CollinsM.. The electronic refractionometer. Br J Physiol Opt, 1937, 1: 30-42

[5] AllenP. M., O’LearyD. J.. Accommodation functions: co-dependency and relationship to refractive error. Vision Res, 2006, 46(4): 491-505

[6] SchaeffelF., WeissS., SeidelJ.. How good is the match between the plane of the text and the plane of focus during reading?. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 1999, 19(2): 180-192

[7] WinnB., PughJ. R., OwensH.. Arterial pulse modulates steady-state ocular accommodation. Curr Eye Res, 1990, 9: 971-975

[8] Wang B, Kenneth J. Depth of focus of the human eye: theory and clinical implications. Survey Ophthalmol, 2006,(51):75–85

[9] ChuckR. S., QuirosP. A.. Corneal sensation after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2000, 26(3): 337-339

[10] RothH. L., LoraA. N., HeilmanK. M.. Effect of monocular viewing and ete dominance on spatial attention. Brain, 2002, 125(9): 2023-2035

[11] IblK.. Characteristics of dynamic accommodation responses: comparison between the dominant and non-dominant eyes. Ophthal Physiol Opt, 1997, 17(1): 44-45