• Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society
• /
• v.14 no.3
• /
• pp.75-81
• /
• 2009

Purpose: The purpose of this controlled study was to determine the effectiveness of vision therapy for accommodative infacility in children. Methods: 10 children 9 to 13 years of age with symptomatic accommodative infacility were divided into a treatment group (n=6) and a contol group (n=4). The treatment group received 12 weeks of vision therapy while the control group received nothing. Results: The visual symptom assessed by COVD-QOL score for the treatment group showed both statistically and clinically significant reduction from 27.50${\pm}$5.68 to 12.00${\pm}$7.24 (p<0.01). Also, there were statistically and clinically significant improvement in the clinical measures of monocular accommodative facility of right eye (from 0.67${\pm}$1.03 cpm to 15.42${\pm}$4.85 cpm; p<0.001) and binocular accommodative facility (from 0.33${\pm}$0.82 cpm to 13.92${\pm}$3.58 cpm; p<0.001). In contrast, there were no significant improvement in symptoms and in the clinical measures of monocular and binocular accommodative facility for the control group (p>0.05). Conclusion: Vision therapy is an effective mode of treatment in eliminating symptoms and improving accommodative facility in children with accommodative infacility.

• Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.169-174
• /
• 2010

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the long-term stability of the improved symptoms and accommodative functions after completion of accommodative therapy. Methods: Seven children (mean age${\pm}$SD: $12{\pm}1.41$ years) who were successfully treated with a vision therapy program for either accommodative insufficiency or infacility were followed for 1 year. The visual symptoms of the subjects were measured by the College of Optometrists in Vision Development Quality of Life (COVD-QOL) checklist, and this was followed by measurement of the monocular and binocular accommodative facility with ${\pm}2.00$ D flipper lens. Results: The mean visual symptoms at the 1 year follow-up examination ($15.14{\pm}8.59$) showed a small increase, but there was no significant difference (p=0.446) from post-therapy ($11.86{\pm}7.22$). There was small regression in the monocular (left eye, $13.86{\pm}3.93cpm$) and binocular ($11.14{\pm}3.13cpm$) accommodative facility at the 1 year follow-up examination, but there were no significant different from the monocular ($15.86{\pm}4.14cpm$, p=0.147) and binocular ($13.21{\pm}3.76cpm$, p=0.066) accommodative facility measurements at post-therapy. Also, every subject met the normative values of ${\geq}7$ cpm for monocular accommodative facility and ${\geq}5$ cpm for binocular accommodative facility in the long-term. Conclusions: There was long-term maintenance of the improved visual symptoms and accommodative functions, and so it is clear that the positive therapeutic effects persist with accommodative therapy.