• Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society
• /
• v.14 no.3
• /
• pp.37-42
• /
• 2009

Purpose: There is uncertainty if the vergence facility would provide clinically significant supplementary information to the fusional vergence measurements. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between vergence facility and fusional vergence in a group of symptomatic subjects. Methods: A total of 114 symptomatic subjects aged 9 to 13 years, who passed the vision screening test, participated in this study. Vergence facility was measured with 8$\Delta$ BI/8$\Delta$ BO flipper lenses and a suppression control target, the 20/30 letter line on Vectogram 9 (Bernell, USA). Near fusional vergence was measured with a single 20/30 vertical line target by Von Graefe technique. In order to avoid excessive convergence stimulation, negative fusional vergence (NFV) range (blur, break and recovery) was measured followed by positive fusional vergence (PFV) ranges (blur, break and recovery). Results: Pearson correlations were calculated and showed no correlations between vergence facility and any of fusional vergence measurements (p>0.05). Also, there were no significant differences of vergence facility measurements on the compensating vergence that passed or failed Sheard and Morgan's criterion for comfortable vision (p>0.05). Conclusions: There was no correlation between vergence facility and fusional vergence among symptomatic subjects. Hence, both vergence facility and fusional vergence should be assessed for those with binocular dysfunction in order to make an accurate diagnosis and management plan.