Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society (한국안광학회지)

The Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society (한국안광학회)
권호 표지

Comparison of Accommodative Response among Emmetropes, Spectacle and Contact Lens Wearer

정시, 안경 및 콘택트렌즈 착용자의 조절반응량 비교

  • 이규병 (대전보건대학 안경광학과) ;
  • 박지현 (신성대학교 안경광학과) ;
  • 김효진 (백석대학교 보건학부 안경광학과)
  • Received : 2012.07.31
  • Accepted : 2012.12.15
  • Published : 2012.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The purposes of this study are to investigate accommodative response among emmetropes, spectacle wearer and contact lens wearer, and correlation between refractive error and accommodative respons for each group. Methods: The 72 subjects(144 eyes) who do not have any ocular diseases were participate in this study. Subjects were categorized into emmetropes, spectacle wearer and contact lens wearer by refractive error using closed-field auto-refractometer. We measured dominant eye, naked/habitual visual acuity and refractive error of monocular/binocular vision of refractive error for far/near distance with open-field auto-refractometer and calculated accommodative lag. Results: There were no significant difference of accommodative lag between right and left eye dominant and non-dominant eye, monocular and binocular vision, and spectacle lens wearer and contact lens wearer, However the accommodative lag of binocular vision was severe than monocular vision at near. The lag of myopia was larger than emmetropes, and male was larger than female. Significant correlation was found between refractive error and accommodative lag in total subjects and the same result was found in emmetropes and contact lens wearer. However there were no significant correlation in the spectacle wearer. Conclusions: There were significant difference between emmetrops and myopes in terms of accommodative lag, however accommodative lag of spectacle wearer was not different with contact lens wearer in myopes. There were also significant correlation between refractive error and accommodative lag in emmetropes and contact lens wearer, but the accommodative lag of spectacle wearer was not significantly correlated with refractive error.

목적: 정시와 안경 및 콘택트렌즈 착용자의 조절반응량을 비교하고, 각 그룹내에서 굴절이상도와 조절래그의 상관성을 확인하고자 하였다. 방법: 안질환이 없고 굴절이상이 완전 교정된 72명(144안)을 대상으로 폐쇄형 자동굴절검사기로 측정한 굴절이상도를 사용하여 정시, 안경착용자 및 콘택트렌즈 착용자로 분류하였다. 이후 우세안, 나안시력 및 교정시력을 측정하고, 개방형 자동굴절검사기를 이용하여 단안 및 양안으로 원/근거리(5 m/33 cm)를 주시할 때의 굴절이상도를 측정하여 조절래그를 산출하였다. 결과: 좌우안 및 우세안/비우세안의 조절래그는 단안/양안주시 모두 통계적으로 유의한 차이가 없었으며, 단안주시의 조절래그가 양안주시보다 더 크게 검출되었다. 또한 남녀간의 조절래그는 단안주시는 남자가 컸지만 양안주시는 유의한 차이가 없었다. 근시도와 조절래그는 단안/양안주시 모두 근시안이 정시안에 비해 더 컸지만, 안경착용자와 콘택트렌즈 착용자의 조절래그는 단안/양안주시 모두 유의한 차이는 없었다. 전체 대상자의 굴절이상도와 조절래그 상관성은 단안/양안주시 모두 굴절이상도가 클수록 조절래그가 컸으며, 정시안과 콘택트렌즈 착용자는 단안/양안주시 모두 유의한 상관성이 있었으나 안경착용자는 단안/양안주시 모두 유의한 상관성이 없었다. 결론: 정시안과 근시안의 조절래그는 유의한 차이가 있고, 근시안 중 안경착용자와 콘택트렌즈 착용자의 조절래그는 유의한 차이가 없었다. 정시안과 콘택트렌즈 착용자의 굴절이상도는 조절반응량과 상관성을 보였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Shin JA, Lee OJ. Relationship between subjective symptoms with near work and binocular function. J Korean Oph Opt Soc. 2007;12(3):125-130.
  2. Theodore G. Primary care optometry, 5th Ed. Butterworth- Heinemann, 2006:267-268.
  3. Kurtz D, Carlson NB. Clinical procedure for ocular examination, 3rd Ed. McGraw-Hill, 2003:197-201.
  4. Manny RE, Chandler DL, Scheiman MM, Gwiazda JE, Cotter SA, Everett DF, et al. Accommodative lag by autorefraction and two dynamic retinoscopy methods. Optom Vis Sci. 2009;86(3):233-243. https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0b013e318197180c
  5. Bae HJ, Yoon MO, Kim HS, Eom JH. The correlation of refractive error and accommodative response. Korean J Vis Sci. 2010;12(2):103-109.
  6. Bae SH, Kwak HW. Comparison between accommodative response change on the full vision correction and low vision correction. J Korean Oph Opt Soc. 2012;17(1):75- 81.
  7. Kim HK. Comparison of accommodative response between emmetropia and myopia in children and adult. Master Thesis. Eulji University, Daejeon. 2012:5-59.
  8. Baarg SB, Jeong YH. The accommodative lag and refractive error in early adults. J Korean Oph Opt Soc. 2012; 17(1):59-65.
  9. Mutti DO, Mitchell GL, Hayes JR, Jones LA, Jones LA, Moeschberger ML, et al. Accommodative lag before and after the onset of myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47(3):837-846. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.05-0888
  10. Rabbetts RB. Clinical visual optics. 4th Ed., New York, Butterworth-Heinemann. 2007:148-149.
  11. Shim HS, Lee SW, Shim MS, Choi SM, Jang SJ. Accommodative response measurement using both eyes openview autorefractometer. J Korean Oph Opt Soc. 2005; 10(4):323-328.
  12. Weizhong L, Zhikuan Y, Wen L, Xiang C, Jian G. A longitudinal study on the relationship between myopia development and near accommodation lag in myopic children. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2008;28(1):57-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2007.00536.x
  13. Nakatsuka C, Hasebe S, Nonaka F, Ohtsuki H. Accommodative lag under habitual seeing conditions: comparison between myopic and emmetropic children. Jpn J Ohthalmol. 2005;49(3):189-194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10384-004-0175-7
  14. Rosenfield M, Desai R, Portello JK. Do progressing myopes show reduced accommodative responses?. Optom Vis Sci. 2002;79(4):268-273. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-200204000-00014
  15. Seidel D, Gray LS, Heron G. Retinotopic accommodation responses in myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003; 44(3):1035-1041. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.02-0264
  16. Norton TT. Animal models of myopia: learning how vision controls the size of the eye. ILAR J. 1999;40(2): 59-77. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.40.2.59
  17. Gwiazda J, Thorn F, Bauer J, Held R. Myopic children show insufficient accommodative response to blur. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1993;34(3):690-694.
  18. Schmid KL, Hilmer KS, Lawrence RA, Loh SY, Morrish LJ, Brown B. The effect of common reductions in letter size and contrast on accommodation responses in young adult myopes and emmetropes. Optom Vis Sci. 2005; 82(7): 602-611. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.opx.0000171337.02376.60
  19. Buehren T, Collins MJ. Accommodation stimulus-response function and retinal image quality. Vision Res. 2006;46(10): 1633-1645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2005.06.009
  20. Rosenfield M, Gilmartin B. Disparity-induced accommodation in late-onset myopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1988;8(3):353-355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.1988.tb01068.x
  21. Han GA, Hwang JH, Mah KC. Objective measurement of accommodative responses with open-field autorefractor. Korean J Vis Sci. 2009;11(1):35-44.
  22. Shim HS, Shim MS, Joo SH. A study of accommodative response on emmetropia. J Korean Oph Opt Soc. 2006; 11(3):187-192.
  23. Szklo M, Nieto FJ. Epidemiology: beyond the basics, 2nd Ed. Jones and Bartlett, 2006:164-181.
  24. He JC, Burns SA, Marcos S. Monochromatic aberrations in the accommodated human eye. Vision Res. 2000;40(1): 41-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(99)00156-X
  25. Cheng H, Barnett JK, Vilupuru AS, Marsack JD, Kasthurirangan S, Applegate RA, et al. A population study on changes in wave aberrations with accommodation. J Vis. 2004;4(4):272-280.
  26. Gambra E, Sawides L, Dorronsoro C, Marcos S. Accommodative lag and fluctuations when optical aberrations are manipulated. J Vis. 2009;9(6):1-15. https://doi.org/10.1167/9.6.1
  27. Plainis S, Ginis HS, Pallikaris A. The effect of ocular aberrations on steady-state errors of accommodative response. J Vis. 2005;5(5):466-477.