Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14479/jkoos.2015.20.2.117

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

Lee, A-Young (Dept. of Optometry, Eulji University)
Kim, Jeong-Mee (Dept. of Optometry, Eulji University)
Lee, Koon-Ja (Dept. of Optometry, Eulji University)
Publication Information
Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society / v.20, no.2, 2015 , pp. 117-124 More about this Journal
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.
Keywords
Monovision; Modified monovision; Multifocal contact lens; Near task; Accommodative function;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
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.   DOI
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.   DOI
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.   DOI
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.   DOI
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.   DOI
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.   DOI
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.   DOI
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.   DOI
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.   DOI
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.   DOI
22 Han GA, Hwang JH, Mah KC. Objective measurement of accommodative responses with open-field autorefractor. Korean J Vis Sci. 2009;11(1):35-44.
23 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.   DOI
24 Gupta N, Naroo SA, Wolffsohn JS. Visual comparison of multifocal contact lens to monovision. Optom Vis Sci. 2009;86(2):98-105.   DOI
25 Rajagopalan AS, Bennett ES, Lakshminarayanan V. Visual performance of subjects wearing presbyopic contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 2006;83(8):611-615.   DOI
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.   DOI
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.   DOI
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.   DOI
30 Plainis S, Atchison DA, Charman WN. Power profiles of multifocal contact lenes and their interpretation. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90(10):1066-1077.   DOI
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.   DOI