The Korean Journal of Vision Science (대한시과학회지)

The Korean Society of Vision Science (대한시과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of Induced Accommodation Relaxation Methods on Visual Function in Young Adults

유도된 조절부담 완화방법이 젊은 성인의 시기능에 미치는 영향

  • Lee, A-Young (DAVICH Optical Chain Gwangjang-dong Store) ;
  • Lee, Koon-Ja (Department of Optometry, Graduate School, Eulji University)
  • 이아영 (다비치안경체인 광장동 올림픽대교 북단점) ;
  • 이군자 (을지대학교 안경광학과)
  • Published : 2016.09.30
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluated the effect of induced accommodation relaxation methods on visual function in young adults with monovision, modified monovision and multifocal contact lenses of low add power. Materials and Methods: Twenty two young subjects ($23.36{\pm}2.57years$) were fitted with single vision contact lenses, monovision, modified monovision and multifocal contact lenses with masking method. After wearing the contact lenses for a week for adaptation, binocular contrast visual acuity (VA) at distance and near, stereoacuity, ghost image, legibility, thread a needle and subjective visual performance with questionnaires were evaluated with each of these modalities. All the assessments of visual function were made after 1 hour watching visual display at computer for induced accommodation. Results: There was no difference in binocular 100% distance contrast visual acuity, 100% and 10% near contrast visual acuity between these modalities and single vision as control, however, 10% binocular distance contrast visual acuity was lowest with monovision(p<0.05). Stereoacuity was lowest with monovision compared with other modalities(p<0.05), and there were no significant differences between other modalities. Both of accuracy and speed of legibility worst with monovision compared with other modalities(p<0.05) and there were no significant differences between other modalities. The distance and near visual satisfaction, stereoacuity and adaptation measured with questionnaires, there were no differences between modified monovision, multifocal contact lenses and single vision contact lens, however, those with monovision showed worst satisfaction. Conclusions: There were no differences in visual function in young subjects fitted with low addition of modified monovision, multifocal contact lenses vs single vision contact lenses, however, with monovision contact lenses, low contrast distance visual acuity, steroacuity, legibility and visual satisfaction were decreased.

목 적: 젊은 성인에게 조절부담 완화방법으로 낮은 가입도의 모노비전, 변형된 모노비전 및 멀티포컬 소프트 콘택트렌즈를 처방한 후 시기능에 미치는 영향을 평가하였다. 방 법: 20대 성인 22명($23.36{\pm}2.57$ 세)을 대상으로 단초점 콘택트렌즈, 모노비전, 변형된 모노비전, 멀티포컬 콘택트렌즈를 단순맹검법으로 양안에 착용시키고 일주일의 적응기간이 경과한 후 조절을 유도하기 위하여 콘택트렌즈를 착용한 상태에서 1시간 동안 40 cm 거리에서 동영상을 시청하도록 한 후 양안 개방상태에서 양안 원 근거리 대비시력, 입체시력, 가독력, 유령상(ghost image), 바늘귀에 실꿰기 및 시기능 관련 설문지를 이용하여 평가하였다. 결 과: 양안 원거리 100% 대비시력과 양안 근거리 100%와 10% 대비시력은 교정방법에 따라 차이가 없었고 단초점 콘택트렌즈와 차이가 없었으나, 10% 원거리 대비시력은 모노비전에서 가장 낮았다(p<0.05). 입체시력은 모노비전의 경우 가장 낮았으며(p<0.05), 다른 교정방법은 단초점 콘택트렌즈와 차이가 없었다. 가독력은 모노비전 콘택트렌즈를 착용했을 때 가장 느리고 부정확했으며(p<0.05), 다른 교정방법은 단초점 콘택트렌즈와 차이가 없었다. 유령상(ghost image)은 교정방법 사이에 차이가 없었다. 원 근거리 시력, 입체시, 적응도에 대한 설문 만족도 조사에서는 변형된 모노비전과 멀티포컬 콘택트렌즈는 단초점 콘택트렌즈와 차이가 없었지만 모노비전은 다른 방법보다 만족도가 낮게 나타났다. 결 론: 젊은 성인에서 낮은 가입도의 변형된 모노비전 콘택트렌즈와 멀티포컬 콘택트렌즈 착용 후 시기능은 단초점 콘택트렌즈와 유의한 차이가 없었지만 모노비전의 경우에는 저대비 원거리시력, 입체시력, 가독력 및 시기능 만족도가 저하되는 것으로 나타났다.

Keywords

References

  1. Bar Dayan Y, Levin A et al.: The changing prevalence of myopia in young adults: a 13-year series of population-based prevalence surveys. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 46(8), 2760-2765, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.04-0260
  2. Baba T, Ohno-Matsui K et al.: Prevalence and characteristics of foveal retinal detachment without macular hole in high myopia. Am J Ophthalmol. 135(3), 338-342, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9394(02)01937-2
  3. Smith EL 3rd, Hung LF: The role of optical defocus in regulating refractive development in infant monkeys. Vision Res. 39(8), 1415-1435, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(98)00229-6
  4. Gwiazda J, Thorn F: Accommodation, accommodative convergence, and response AC/A ratios before and at the onset of myopia in children. Optom Vis Sci. 82(4), 273-278, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.OPX.0000159363.07082.7D
  5. McBrien NA, Millodot M: The effect of refractive error on the accommodative response gradient. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 6(2), 145-149, 1986. https://doi.org/10.1016/0275-5408(86)90005-0
  6. Tabernero J, Vazquez D et al.: Effects of myopic spectacle correction and radial refractive gradient spectacles on peripheral refraction. Vision Res. 49(17), 2176-2186, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2009.06.008
  7. Sankaridurg P, Donovan L et al.: Spectacle lenses designed to reduce progression of myopia: 12-month results. Optom Vis Sci. 87(9), 631-641, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181ea19c7
  8. Shin JA: Prevalence of accommodative insufficiency and convergence insufficiency in college students. Korean J Vis Sci. 6(1), 95-102, 2004.
  9. Koh KH, Jeon IC et al.: Analysis of clinical performance of lenses for improving accommodative function. Korean J Vis Sci. 10(301), 225-238, 2008.
  10. Tarrant J, Severson H et al.: Accommodation in emmetropic and myopic young adults wearing bifocal soft contact lenses. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 28(1), 62-72, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2007.00529.x
  11. Anstice NS, Phillips JR: Effect of dual-focus soft contact lens wear on axial myopia progression in children. Ophthalmology 118(6), 1152-1161, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.10.035
  12. Lam CS, Tang WC et al.: Defocus Incorporated Soft Contact (DISC) lens slows myopia progression in Hong Kong Chinese schoolchildren: a 2-year randomised clinical trial. Br J Ophthalmol. 98(1), 40-45, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-303914
  13. Evans BJ: Monovision; a review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 27(5), 417-439, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2007.00488.x
  14. Richdale K, Mitchell GL et al.: Comparison of multifocal and monovision soft contact lens corrections in patients with low astigmatic presbyopia. Optom Vis Sci. 83(5), 266-273, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.opx.0000216098.62165.34
  15. Kirschen DG, Hung CC et al.: Comparison of suppression, stereoacuity, and interocular differences in visual acuity in monovision and Acuvue bifocal contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 76(12), 832-837, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-199912000-00018
  16. Jain S, Arora I et al.: Success of monovision in presbyopes: review of the literature and potential applications to refractive surgery. Surv Ophthalmol. 40(6), 491-499, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-6257(96)82015-7
  17. McDonnell PJ, Lee P et al.: Associations of presbyopia with vision-targeted health-related quality of life. Arch Ophthalmol. 121(11), 1577-1581, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.121.11.1577
  18. Bennett ES, Henry VA: Clinical Manual of Contact Lenses, 4th ed., Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp. 411-412, 2013.
  19. Vandermeer G, Rio D et al.: Subjective through-focus quality of vision with various versions of modified monovision. Br J Ophthalmol. 99(7), 997-1003, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-305437
  20. Ferrer-Blasco T, Madrid-Costa D: Stereoacuity with balanced presbyopic contact lenses. Clin Exp Optom. 94(1), 76-81, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2010.00530.x
  21. Chu BS, Wood JM et al.: Effect of presbyopic vision corrections on perceptions of driving difficulty. Eye Contact Lens. 35(3), 133-143, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0b013e3181a1435e
  22. Chu BS, Wood JM et al.: The effect of presbyopic vision corrections on night-time driving performance. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 51(9), 4861-4866, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.10-5154
  23. Llorente-Guillemot A, Garcia-Lazaro S et al.: Visual performance with simultaneous vision multifocal contact lenses. Clin Exp Optom. 95(1), 54-59, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2011.00666.x
  24. Woods J, Woods C et al.: Visual performance of a multifocal contact lens versus monovision in established presbyopes. Optom Vis Sci. 92(2), 175-182, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000000476
  25. Fernandes PR, Neves HI et al.: Adaptation to multifocal and monovision contact lens correction. Optom Vis Sci. 90(2), 228-235, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0b013e318282951b
  26. Kang P, Wildsoet CF: Acute and short-term changes in visual function with multifocal soft contact lens wear in young adults. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 39(2), 133-140, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2015.09.004
  27. Lee AY, Kim JM et al.: Comparison of accommodative function of young adults in their twenties wearing monovision, modified monovision and multifocal soft contact lenses. J Korean Oph Opt Soc. 20(2), 117-124, 2015. https://doi.org/10.14479/jkoos.2015.20.2.117
  28. Cairns G, China P et al.: A novel method to evaluate secondary images associated with contact lens multifocal designs. Presented at the American Academy of Optometry 2009 Annual meeting.
  29. Ku HY, Kim DY: Comparative study of Korean letters legibility of progressive lens wearers and single focus lens wearers under the VDT circumstance. J Korean Oph Opt Soc. 17(2), 195-202, 2012.
  30. An YS, Kim YH et al.: The comparison of the readability by web-text presentation patterns. J Educational Information and Media. 9(3), 177-201, 2003.
  31. Anderson H, Hentz G et al.: Minus-lens-stimulated accommodative amplitude decreases sigmoidally with age; A study of objectively measured accommodative amplitudes from age 3. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 49(7), 2919-2926, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.07-1492
  32. Ko BU, Ryu WY et al.: Pupil size in the normal Korean population according to age and illuminance. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 52(4), 401-406, 2011. https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2011.52.4.401
  33. Aruna SR, Edward SR et al.: Visual performance of subjects wearing presbyopic contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 83(8), 611-615, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.opx.0000232185.00091.45
  34. Hutnik CM, O'Hagan D: Multifocal contact lenses-look again!. Can J Ophthalmol. 32(3), 201-205, 1997.
  35. Lovasik JV, Szymkiw M: Effects of aniseikonia, anisometropia, accommodation, retinal illuminance, and pupil size on stereopsis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 26(5), 741-750, 1985.
  36. Kim JM : Study on monovision of fitting soft contact lenses for college students. J Korean Oph Opt Soc. 9(1), 181-188, 2004.
  37. Choi JY, Kim JM et al.: Changes of stereoacuity with correction in induced anisometropia. J Korean Oph Opt Soc. 13(4), 121-126, 2008.
  38. Lew YJ, Lee MV et al.: Effect of spherical lens induced aniseikonia on binocular function. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 45(1), 99-104, 2004.
  39. Lee SY, Koo NK: Change of stereoacuity with aging in normal eyes. Korean J Ophthalmol. 19(2), 136-139, 2005. https://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2005.19.2.136
  40. Gupta N, Naroo SA et al.: Visual comparison of multifocal contact lens to monovision. Optom Vis Sci. 86(2), E98-105, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0b013e318194eb18
  41. Ito M, Shimizu K: Reading ability with pseudophakic monovision and with refractive multifocal intraocular lenses: Comparative study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 35(9), 1501-1504, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.03.051