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

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

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; Amin, on average -3.77 ± 0.26 D; Amax, 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.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

E. P. Tarutta

Helmholtz National Medical Research Center of Eye Diseases

Email: elenatarutta@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8864-4518

MD, Dr of Med. Sci, professor

Russian Federation, Moscow

N. A. Tarasova

Helmholtz National Medical Research Center of Eye Diseases

Email: tar221@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3164-4306
SPIN-code: 3056-4316

MD, PhD, Cand. Sci. Med

Russian Federation, Москва

E. N. Iomdina

Helmholtz National Medical Research Center of Eye Diseases

Email: iomdina@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8143-3606
SPIN-code: 6676-7694

Dr of Biol. Sci, professor

Russian Federation, Moscow

S. V. Milash

Helmholtz National Medical Research Center of Eye Diseases

Email: sergey_milash@yahoo.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3553-9896
SPIN-code: 5224-4319

MD, PhD, Cand. Sci. Med

Russian Federation, Moscow

G. A. Markosyan

Helmholtz National Medical Research Center of Eye Diseases

Author for correspondence.
Email: dvdomdv@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2841-6396

MD, Dr of Med. Sci

Russian Federation, Moscow

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. 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
  3. 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
  4. Tarutta EP, Filinova OB, Tarasova NA. New methods for objective accommodation. Russian pediatric ophthalmology. 2012;(1):45–48 (In Russ).
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. Fig. 1. The device for express diagnostics of accommodation “Iksar”.

Download (80KB)
2. Fig. 2. Open field autorefractometer Grand Seiko Binocular Open Field Autorefkeratometer WR-5500K.

Download (91KB)
3. Fig. 3. Automatic refracto - / kerato - / tono - / pachymeter TONOREF III.

Download (79KB)
4. Fig. 4. Objective accommodation measurement (accommodation amplitude) on the TONOREF III device.

Download (105KB)
5. Fig. 5. The results of the determination of BAO and MAO obtained at the Grand Seiko Binocular Open Field Auto ref keratometer WR-5500K. The abscissa axis is the number of measurements. The ordinate axis is the accommodative response, D.

Download (70KB)
6. Fig. 6. Objective accommodation measurement (accommodation amplitude) on the device TONOREF III.

Download (134KB)
7. Fig. 7. The results of the determination of BAO and MAO obtained at the Grand Seiko Binocular Open Field Auto ref keratometer WR-5500K. The abscissa axis is the number of measurements. The ordinate axis is the accommodative response, D.

Download (69KB)

Copyright (c) 2021 Eco-Vector



This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies