Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association · 2019
Quantification of accommodative response and visual performance in non-presbyopes wearing low-add contact lenses.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Koh Shizuka, Inoue Ryota, Sato Shinnosuke, Haruna Mai, Asonuma Sanae, Nishida Kohji
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Digital eye strain encompasses a range of ocular and visual symptoms across all age groups. Recently, symptoms associated with accommodative or binocular vision stress have become a major problem, especially in young individuals. The purpose of this prospective, single-blinded study was to objectively quantify the accommodative response and visual performance of low-add soft contact lenses (CLs) in young non-presbyopic individuals.
METHODS: A daily disposable low-add bifocal design lens (low-add CL) was tested. It employs a centre-distance optical zone and peripheral zone with the added power of +0.50 D to support near vision. Sixteen subjects aged 20-39 years were enrolled in the study. Refractive state and accommodation were measured using an open-field autorefractor with three target vergences, namely, -0.20 D, -2.5 D, and -4.0 D. Binocular visual acuity at high (100%) and low (40%, 20%) contrast and reading ability were assessed. Monofocal soft CLs were used as controls.
RESULTS: Accommodative response with low-add CLs was significantly smaller than those with two monofocal CL wearing conditions, i.e., at 40 cm (2.5 D of stimulus) and 25 cm (4.0 D of stimulus) (all p < 0.05). The 20% contrast visual acuity at distance was significantly better with low-add CLs and second-time monofocal CLs compared to first-time monofocal CLs (all p < 0.05). The reading ability was not significantly different.
CONCLUSIONS: Quantification of accommodative response and visual performance demonstrated that using low-add CLs alleviated the accommodation under the near-vision condition, without sacrificing distance vision, in non-presbyopes.
METHODS: A daily disposable low-add bifocal design lens (low-add CL) was tested. It employs a centre-distance optical zone and peripheral zone with the added power of +0.50 D to support near vision. Sixteen subjects aged 20-39 years were enrolled in the study. Refractive state and accommodation were measured using an open-field autorefractor with three target vergences, namely, -0.20 D, -2.5 D, and -4.0 D. Binocular visual acuity at high (100%) and low (40%, 20%) contrast and reading ability were assessed. Monofocal soft CLs were used as controls.
RESULTS: Accommodative response with low-add CLs was significantly smaller than those with two monofocal CL wearing conditions, i.e., at 40 cm (2.5 D of stimulus) and 25 cm (4.0 D of stimulus) (all p < 0.05). The 20% contrast visual acuity at distance was significantly better with low-add CLs and second-time monofocal CLs compared to first-time monofocal CLs (all p < 0.05). The reading ability was not significantly different.
CONCLUSIONS: Quantification of accommodative response and visual performance demonstrated that using low-add CLs alleviated the accommodation under the near-vision condition, without sacrificing distance vision, in non-presbyopes.