Strabismus · 2018
Differences in the Stimulus Accommodative Convergence/Accommodation Ratio using Various Techniques and Accommodative Stimuli.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Satou Tsukasa, Ito Misae, Shinomiya Yuma, Takahashi Yoshiaki, Hara Naoto, Niida Takahiro
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To investigate differences in the stimulus accommodative convergence/accommodation (AC/A) ratio using various techniques and accommodative stimuli, and to describe a method for determining the stimulus AC/A ratio.
METHODS: A total of 81 subjects with a mean age of 21 years (range, 20-23 years) were enrolled. The relationship between ocular deviation and accommodation was assessed using two methods. Ocular deviation was measured by varying the accommodative requirement using spherical plus/minus lenses to create an accommodative stimulus of 10.00 diopters (D) (in 1.00 D steps). Ocular deviation was assessed using the alternate prism cover test in method 1 at distance (5 m) and near (1/3 m), and the major amblyoscope in method 2. The stimulus AC/A ratios obtained using methods 1 and 2 were calculated and defined as the stimulus AC/A ratios with low and high accommodation, respectively, using the following analysis method. The former was calculated as the difference between the convergence response to an accommodative stimulus of 3 D and 0 D, divided by 3. The latter was calculated as the difference between the convergence response to a maximum (max) accommodative stimulus with distinct vision of the subject and an accommodative stimulus of max minus 3.00 D, divided by 3.
RESULTS: The median stimulus AC/A ratio with low accommodation (1.0 Δ/D for method 1 at distance, 2.0 Δ/D for method 1 at near, and 2.7 Δ/D for method 2) differed significantly among the measurement methods (P < 0.01). Differences in the median stimulus AC/A ratio with high accommodation (4.0 Δ/D for method 1 at distance, 3.7 Δ/D for method 1 at near, and 4.7 Δ/D for method 2) between method 1 at distance and method 2 were statistically significant (P < 0.05), while method 1 at near was not significantly different compared with other methods.
CONCLUSIONS: Differences in the stimulus AC/A ratio value were significant according to measurement technique and accommodative stimuli. However, differences caused by measurement technique may be reduced by using a high accommodative stimulus during measurements.
METHODS: A total of 81 subjects with a mean age of 21 years (range, 20-23 years) were enrolled. The relationship between ocular deviation and accommodation was assessed using two methods. Ocular deviation was measured by varying the accommodative requirement using spherical plus/minus lenses to create an accommodative stimulus of 10.00 diopters (D) (in 1.00 D steps). Ocular deviation was assessed using the alternate prism cover test in method 1 at distance (5 m) and near (1/3 m), and the major amblyoscope in method 2. The stimulus AC/A ratios obtained using methods 1 and 2 were calculated and defined as the stimulus AC/A ratios with low and high accommodation, respectively, using the following analysis method. The former was calculated as the difference between the convergence response to an accommodative stimulus of 3 D and 0 D, divided by 3. The latter was calculated as the difference between the convergence response to a maximum (max) accommodative stimulus with distinct vision of the subject and an accommodative stimulus of max minus 3.00 D, divided by 3.
RESULTS: The median stimulus AC/A ratio with low accommodation (1.0 Δ/D for method 1 at distance, 2.0 Δ/D for method 1 at near, and 2.7 Δ/D for method 2) differed significantly among the measurement methods (P < 0.01). Differences in the median stimulus AC/A ratio with high accommodation (4.0 Δ/D for method 1 at distance, 3.7 Δ/D for method 1 at near, and 4.7 Δ/D for method 2) between method 1 at distance and method 2 were statistically significant (P < 0.05), while method 1 at near was not significantly different compared with other methods.
CONCLUSIONS: Differences in the stimulus AC/A ratio value were significant according to measurement technique and accommodative stimuli. However, differences caused by measurement technique may be reduced by using a high accommodative stimulus during measurements.