Cargando…

Accommodative Response in Patients with Central Field Loss: A Matched Case-Control Study

Purpose: This study was conducted to evaluate the accommodative response in young participants with visual impairment in comparison with visually normal participants. Methods: Fifteen participants with confirmed visual impairment and 30 visually normal participants aged 12–15 years were recruited. A...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alsaqr, Ali Mazyed, AlShareef, Hisham, Alhajri, Faisal, Abusharha, Ali, Fagehi, Raied, Alharbi, Ahmad, Alanazi, Saud
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8293396/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34287385
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vision5030035
_version_ 1783725027123789824
author Alsaqr, Ali Mazyed
AlShareef, Hisham
Alhajri, Faisal
Abusharha, Ali
Fagehi, Raied
Alharbi, Ahmad
Alanazi, Saud
author_facet Alsaqr, Ali Mazyed
AlShareef, Hisham
Alhajri, Faisal
Abusharha, Ali
Fagehi, Raied
Alharbi, Ahmad
Alanazi, Saud
author_sort Alsaqr, Ali Mazyed
collection PubMed
description Purpose: This study was conducted to evaluate the accommodative response in young participants with visual impairment in comparison with visually normal participants. Methods: Fifteen participants with confirmed visual impairment and 30 visually normal participants aged 12–15 years were recruited. Accommodative response was measured using autorefractor (Grand Seiko WV500) at distances of accommodative demand of 33, 25, and 20 cm. The targets were one-line-above participant threshold acuity. The participants’ accommodative responses were compared between both groups after calibration for refractive errors and the vertex distance of the glasses. Visual acuity and refractive status were also assessed. Results: The age was not significantly different between both participant groups. The visual acuity of visually impaired patients was 6/30 to 6/240, and that of visually normal participants was 6/7.5 or better. Ten of the visually impaired patients and 29 of visually normal participants were myopic. In total, 61–73% of visually impaired patients showed an accommodative lead. Five subtypes of accommodative response were observed. In general, the accommodative inaccuracy increased with increasing accommodative demand. However, the visually normal participants largely exhibited an accommodative lag. A mild-to-moderate relationship was observed between visual acuity and accommodative response (r = 0.3–0.5, p < 0.05). Conclusion: Accommodative response in young visually impaired patients can be variable and on an individual basis. Low vision specialists should anticipate accommodative response outside the normal range. Therefore, we shall consider evaluating each patient’s accommodative response before prescribing any near addition lenses. Accommodation inaccuracy is often more complex than predicted due to increased depth of focus caused by reduced visual acuity.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8293396
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82933962021-07-22 Accommodative Response in Patients with Central Field Loss: A Matched Case-Control Study Alsaqr, Ali Mazyed AlShareef, Hisham Alhajri, Faisal Abusharha, Ali Fagehi, Raied Alharbi, Ahmad Alanazi, Saud Vision (Basel) Article Purpose: This study was conducted to evaluate the accommodative response in young participants with visual impairment in comparison with visually normal participants. Methods: Fifteen participants with confirmed visual impairment and 30 visually normal participants aged 12–15 years were recruited. Accommodative response was measured using autorefractor (Grand Seiko WV500) at distances of accommodative demand of 33, 25, and 20 cm. The targets were one-line-above participant threshold acuity. The participants’ accommodative responses were compared between both groups after calibration for refractive errors and the vertex distance of the glasses. Visual acuity and refractive status were also assessed. Results: The age was not significantly different between both participant groups. The visual acuity of visually impaired patients was 6/30 to 6/240, and that of visually normal participants was 6/7.5 or better. Ten of the visually impaired patients and 29 of visually normal participants were myopic. In total, 61–73% of visually impaired patients showed an accommodative lead. Five subtypes of accommodative response were observed. In general, the accommodative inaccuracy increased with increasing accommodative demand. However, the visually normal participants largely exhibited an accommodative lag. A mild-to-moderate relationship was observed between visual acuity and accommodative response (r = 0.3–0.5, p < 0.05). Conclusion: Accommodative response in young visually impaired patients can be variable and on an individual basis. Low vision specialists should anticipate accommodative response outside the normal range. Therefore, we shall consider evaluating each patient’s accommodative response before prescribing any near addition lenses. Accommodation inaccuracy is often more complex than predicted due to increased depth of focus caused by reduced visual acuity. MDPI 2021-07-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8293396/ /pubmed/34287385 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vision5030035 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Alsaqr, Ali Mazyed
AlShareef, Hisham
Alhajri, Faisal
Abusharha, Ali
Fagehi, Raied
Alharbi, Ahmad
Alanazi, Saud
Accommodative Response in Patients with Central Field Loss: A Matched Case-Control Study
title Accommodative Response in Patients with Central Field Loss: A Matched Case-Control Study
title_full Accommodative Response in Patients with Central Field Loss: A Matched Case-Control Study
title_fullStr Accommodative Response in Patients with Central Field Loss: A Matched Case-Control Study
title_full_unstemmed Accommodative Response in Patients with Central Field Loss: A Matched Case-Control Study
title_short Accommodative Response in Patients with Central Field Loss: A Matched Case-Control Study
title_sort accommodative response in patients with central field loss: a matched case-control study
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8293396/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34287385
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vision5030035
work_keys_str_mv AT alsaqralimazyed accommodativeresponseinpatientswithcentralfieldlossamatchedcasecontrolstudy
AT alshareefhisham accommodativeresponseinpatientswithcentralfieldlossamatchedcasecontrolstudy
AT alhajrifaisal accommodativeresponseinpatientswithcentralfieldlossamatchedcasecontrolstudy
AT abusharhaali accommodativeresponseinpatientswithcentralfieldlossamatchedcasecontrolstudy
AT fagehiraied accommodativeresponseinpatientswithcentralfieldlossamatchedcasecontrolstudy
AT alharbiahmad accommodativeresponseinpatientswithcentralfieldlossamatchedcasecontrolstudy
AT alanazisaud accommodativeresponseinpatientswithcentralfieldlossamatchedcasecontrolstudy