Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society (한국안광학회지)

The Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society (한국안광학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Accommodative Function of Young Adults in their Twenties Wearing Monovision, Modified Monovision and Multifocal Soft Contact Lenses

모노비전, 변형된 모노비전, 멀티포컬 콘택트렌즈로 교정 시 20대 성인의 조절기능 비교

  • Received : 2015.02.09
  • Accepted : 2015.04.14
  • Published : 2015.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the accommodative function of young adult in their 20s wearing monovision, modified monovision, and aspheric multifocal contact lenses at near task. Methods: Thirty young adults ($23.53{\pm}2.37years$) were fitted with monovision, modified monovision (the application of single vision contact lenses and center-near low addition aspheric multifocal contact lenses), and aspheric center-near multifocal contact lenses. After wearing these modalities during a week for adaption, and after watching visual display at computer for inducing accommodative pressure for 1 hour. The following assessments of accommodative function were made: contrast visual acuity (VA) at distance and near; accommodative response; near accommodative facility; and negative relative accommodation (NRA)/positive relative accommodation (PRA). All measurements were carried out binocularly. Results: In binocular distance VA with contrast of 10%, monovision was the worst among the four modalities (p=0.005). In accommodative response at 1 m (1.00 D), monovision was the lowest (p<0.05) and accommodative response at 40 cm (2.50 D) with monovision was lower than that of modified monovision and multifocal contact lens (p<0.05). We also found that there were no significant differences in accommodative facility and NRA/PRA among the four modalities. Conclusions: In young adult (20s), monovision with low add reduced the accommodative response at near task, however, modified monovision and multifocal lens with center-near type did not affect accommodative relaxation.

목적: 모노비전, 변형된 모노비전 및 비구면 멀티포컬 소프트콘택트렌즈로 교정 시 20대 성인에서 근거리 작업 후 조절기능의 변화를 비교하였다. 방법: 30명의 젊은 성인($23.53{\pm}2.37$세)을 대상으로 모노비전, 단초점 콘택트렌즈와 낮은 가입도의 중심부-근용 비구면 다초점 콘택트렌즈를 활용한 변형된 모노비전, 멀티포컬 콘택트렌즈의 교정방법을 사용하여 양안에 착용시키고, 일주일의 적응기간이 경과한 후 조절기능을 검사하였다. 조절기능 평가는 콘택트렌즈를 착용하고 1시간 동안 동영상을 시청하여 조절 부담을 유도한 후 원/근거리의 100%와 10% 대비시력, 조절반응, 근거리 조절용이성, 양성/음성상대조절력 등을 평가하였다. 모든 검사는 양안으로 실행하였다. 결과: 원거리 10% 대비시력은 모노비전에서 가장 낮았다(p<0.005). 조절반응량은 검사거리 1 m(1.00 D)에서 모노비전이 변형된 모노비전보다 작았고, 검사거리 40 cm(2.50 D)에서는 모노비전이 변형된 모노비전, 멀티포컬 콘택트렌즈보다 작았다(p<0.05). 근거리 조절용이성, 양성/음성상대조절력은 콘택트렌즈 교정법 사이에 차이가 없었다. 결론: 20대 성인에서 낮은 가입도의 모노비전 처방은 단초점렌즈보다 근거리 조절반응을 줄여주지만 중심부-근용 멀티포컬 콘택트렌즈를 이용한 '변형된 모노비전'과 멀티포컬 콘택트렌즈 처방은 조절이완에 영향을 주지 않는 것으로 생각된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Digieco Report. Tap On The Door of Mobile First World: Nielsen Koreanclick Mobile Behavioral Data, 2015. https://www.kdi.re.kr/infor/kresearch_view.jsp?ac=127673 (14 January 2015).
  2. The Wall Street Journal. Korea's smartphone population tops milestone, 2014. http://blogs.wsj.com/korearealtime/2014/07/28/koreas-smartphone-population-tops-milestone (28, July. 2014).
  3. Conlon EG, Lovegrove WJ, Chekaluk E, Pattison PE. Measuring visual discomfort. Vis Cogn. 1999;6(6):637-663. https://doi.org/10.1080/135062899394885
  4. Tyrrell RA, Leibowitz HW. The relationship of vergence effort to reports of visual fatigue following prolonged near work. Hum Factors. 1990;32(3):341-357.
  5. Sheedy JE, Hayes JN, Engle J. Is all asthenopia the same? Optom Vis Sci. 2003;80(11):732-739. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-200311000-00008
  6. Park KY, Bak KJ, Lee JG, Lee YS, Roh JH. Factors affecting the complaints of subjective symptoms in VDT operators. J Korea Occup Med. 1997;9(1):156-169.
  7. Koh KH. Clinical performance analysis of lenses for accommodative function improvement. MA Thesis. Eulji University, Daejeon. 2008.
  8. Gwiazda JE, Hyman L, Norton TT, Hussein M, Marsh-Tootle W, Marny R et al. Accommodation and related risk factors associated with myopia progression and their interaction with treatment in COMET children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45(7):2143-2151. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.03-1306
  9. Aller TA, Wildsoet CF. Bifocal soft contact lenses as a possible myopia control treatment: a case report involving identical twins. Clin Exp Optom. 2008;91(4):394-349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2007.00230.x
  10. Rosen R, Jaeken B, Lindskoog PA, Artal P, Unsbo P, Lundstrm L. Evaluating the peripheral optical effect of multifocal contact lenses. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2012;32(6):527-534. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2012.00937.x
  11. Hasebe S, Nakatsuka C, Hamasaki I, Ohtsuki H. Downward deviation of progressive addition lenses in a myopia control trial. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2005;25(4):310-314. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2005.00301.x
  12. Westin E, Wick B, Harrist RB. Factors influencing success of monovision contact lens fitting: survey of contact lens diplomates. Optometry. 2000;71(12):757-763.
  13. Loewenfeld IE. The Pupil: Anatomy, Physiology, and Clinical Applications, Vol 1. Woburn: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1993:295-317.
  14. Bennett ES, Weissman BA. Clinical contact lens practice, 1st Ed. Philadelphia: Lipppincott Williams & wilkins, 2004;544-547.
  15. Anderson H, Hentz G, Glasser A, Stuebing K, Manny R. Minus-lens-stimulated accommodative amplitude decreases sigmoidally with age: A study of objectively measured accommodative amplitudes from age 3. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49(7)2919-2926. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.07-1492
  16. Rosenfield M, Carrel MF. Effect of near-vision addition lenses on the accuracy of the accommodative response. Optometry. 2001;72(1):19-24.
  17. Tarrant J, Severson H, Wildsoet CF. Accommodation in emmetropic and myopic young adults wearing bifocal soft contact lenses. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2008;28(1):62-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2007.00529.x
  18. Montes Mico R, Madrid Costa D, Radhakrishnan H, Charman WN, Ferrer BT. Accommodative functions with multifocal contact lenses: A pilot study. Optom Vis Sci. 2011;88(8):998-1004. https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0b013e31821c0ed8
  19. Alpern M, Larson BF. Vergence and accommodation, IV. Effect of luminance quantity on the AC/A. Am J Opthalmol. 1960;49(5):1140-1149.
  20. Mah KC. Binocular test, 2nd Ed. Daihaksurim. 2007;77-79.
  21. Ko BU, Ryu WY, Park WC. Pupil size in the normal Korean population according to age and illuminance. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2011;52(4):401-406. https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2011.52.4.401
  22. Schor C, Landsman L, Erickson P. Ocular dominance and the interocular suppression of blur in monovision. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1987;64(10):723-730. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-198710000-00002
  23. Gupta N, Naroo SA, Wolffsohn JS. Visual comparison of multifocal contact lens to monovision. Optom Vis Sci. 2009;86(2):98-105. https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0b013e318194eb18
  24. Rajagopalan AS, Bennett ES, Lakshminarayanan V. Visual performance of subjects wearing presbyopic contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 2006;83(8):611-615. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.opx.0000232185.00091.45
  25. Han GA, Hwang JH, Mah KC. Objective measurement of accommodative responses with open-field autorefractor. Korean J Vis Sci. 2009;11(1):35-44.
  26. Pettersson AL, Ramsay MW, Lundstrom L, Rosen R, Nilsson M, Unsbo P et al. Accommodation in young adults wearing aspherical multifocal soft contact lens. J Modern Optics. 2011;58(19-20):1804-1808. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500340.2011.618890
  27. Madrid-Costa D, Ruiz-Alcocer J, Radhakrishnan H, Ferrer-Blasco T, Montes-Mico R. Changes in accommodative response with multifocal contact lenses: a pilot study. Optom Vis Sci. 2011;88(11):1309-1316. https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0b013e31822be35a
  28. Zellers J, Alpert T, Rouse M. A review of the literature and a normative study of accommodative facility. J Am Optom Assoc. 1984;55(1):31-37.
  29. Gracia A, Cacho P, Lara F. Evaluating relative accommodations in general binocular dysfunctions. Optom Vis Sci. 2002;79(12):779-787. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-200212000-00010
  30. Plainis S, Atchison DA, Charman WN. Power profiles of multifocal contact lenes and their interpretation. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90(10):1066-1077. https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000000030
  31. Montes-Mic R, Ali, JL. Distance and near contrast sensitivity function after multifocal intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003;29(4):703-711. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0886-3350(02)01648-6

Cited by

  1. Objective Evaluation of Asthenopia Using Accommodative Microfluctuation in the High-Frequency Region vol.23, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.14479/jkoos.2018.23.4.477
  2. Changes in Visual Function According to the Addition of Center-near Designed Multifocals and Utilization as Contact Lenses for Fatigue vol.20, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.17337/jmbi.2018.20.1.69
  3. Accommodative Changes with Center-Near Multifocal Contact Lenses in Young Adults with Accommodative Infacility vol.21, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.17337/jmbi.2019.21.4.587
  4. Direction Changes in the Dominant Eye and Comparison of Single-Eye Inset Amounts Depending on the View Distance vol.25, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14479/jkoos.2020.25.1.19