Article
Cover
RJAHS Journal Cover Page

Vol No: 4  Issue No: 2 eISSN:  

Article Submission Guidelines

Dear Authors,
We invite you to watch this comprehensive video guide on the process of submitting your article online. This video will provide you with step-by-step instructions to ensure a smooth and successful submission.
Thank you for your attention and cooperation.

Original Article

Animesh Mondal*, Harishma Rajeev

Department of Optometry and Vision Science, Mangala College of Allied Health Sciences, Mangalore, Karnataka, India - 575029.

Corresponding author:

Mr. Animesh Mondal, Assistant Professor, Department of Optometry and Vision Science, Mangala College of Allied Health Sciences, Mangalore, Karnataka, India –575029. E-mail: 1997ani1optm7@gmail.com Affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka.

Received Date: 2021-07-07,
Accepted Date: 2021-08-08,
Published Date: 2021-12-31
Year: 2021, Volume: 1, Issue: 3, Page no. 24-27, DOI: 10.26463/rjahs.1_3_5
Views: 3537, Downloads: 140
Licensing Information:
CC BY NC 4.0 ICON
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0.
Abstract

Background: A relationship between near work and nearsightedness has driven examiners to propose that the activity of the crystalline lens, especially accommodation, is associated with the development and progression of nearsightedness. Myopes have been found to have strange accommodative reaction to blur.

Objective: To compare accommodative facility in eyes with emmetropia and myopia.

Method: This cross-sectional study was conducted among subjects in the age group of 18 - 24 years. Twenty emmetropic subjects and 20 myopic subjects were selected for the study. The subjects underwent vision assessment and refraction, slit lamp examination and few binocular vision assessments like cover test and broad H test. Accommodative facility was measured by using ± 2.00 D accommodative flippers in both emmetropes and myopes (with correction).

Results: Accommodative facility in both the groups was measured. From this study, it can be clearly noted that there was a highly significant difference in accommodative facility of emmetropes and accommodative facility of myopes. There was a reduced accommodative facility in myopes than in emmetropes.

 Conclusion: The findings, collected data and the results of our study showed that accommodative facility was reduced in myopes when compared to emmetropes.

<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><strong><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Segoe UI',sans-serif;">Background:</span></strong><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Segoe UI',sans-serif;"> A relationship between near work and nearsightedness has driven examiners to propose that the activity of the crystalline lens, especially accommodation, is associated with the development and progression of nearsightedness. Myopes have been found to have strange accommodative reaction to blur.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><strong><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Segoe UI',sans-serif;">Objective:</span></strong><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Segoe UI',sans-serif;"> To compare accommodative facility in eyes with emmetropia and myopia.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><strong><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Segoe UI',sans-serif;">Method:</span></strong><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Segoe UI',sans-serif;"> This cross-sectional study was conducted among subjects in the age group of 18 - 24 years. Twenty emmetropic subjects and 20 myopic subjects were selected for the study. The subjects underwent vision assessment and refraction, slit lamp examination and few binocular vision assessments like cover test and broad H test. Accommodative facility was measured by using &plusmn; 2.00 D accommodative flippers in both emmetropes and myopes (with correction).</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><strong><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Segoe UI',sans-serif;">Results:</span></strong><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Segoe UI',sans-serif;"> Accommodative facility in both the groups was measured. From this study, it can be clearly noted that there was a highly significant difference in accommodative facility of emmetropes and accommodative facility of myopes. There was a reduced accommodative facility in myopes than in emmetropes.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: 'Segoe UI',sans-serif;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span><strong>Conclusion:</strong> The findings, collected data and the results of our study showed that accommodative facility was reduced in myopes when compared to emmetropes.</span></p>
Keywords
Emmetropia, Myopia, Accommodative facility, Accommodation
Downloads
  • 1
    FullTextPDF
Article

Introduction

Accommodation alludes to the cycle, whereby changes in the dioptric power of the crystalline lens happen with the goal that an in-focus retinal picture of an object of respect is gotten and kept up with at the high-resolution fovea. Accommodative facility is the capacity of eyes to focus on stimuli at different distances and in various groupings in a given timeframe. Clinically this is estimated (by utilizing flippers) either monocularly or binocularly, by having the subject focus a little objective and then again through plus and minus lenses, which are traded when the objective shows up as a clear image. The activity is rehashed commonly and the outcomes are usually introduced in cycles each moment (one cycle demonstrates that both plus and minus lens have been cleared.1,2,3

 

Nearsightedness or limitation is a condition in which individuals can see close items clearly, yet objects farther away seem blurred. Individuals with nearsightedness are named as myopes.4,5 Emmetropia is ordinary refractive state of eye in which the beams of light are precisely focused on the retina. A relationship between close to work action and nearsightedness has driven agents to propose that the activity of crystalline lens, especially convenience is associated with the turn of events and movement of nearsightedness.6,7,8 Generally the absence of an exact accommodative reaction compared to time of retinal defocus prompts expanded eye development and nearsightedness.9 Different proportions of accommodation like amplitude of accommodation, tonic accommodation, accommodative adaption, accommodative stimulus response curve, and near work actuated transient nearsightedness have been explored and there is developing proof from these examinations to propose that errors of accommodation are related with nearsightedness.10 Notwithstanding these discoveries, in any case, the component by which accommodation could influence the improvement of nearsightedness isn’t completely perceived and, of significance, there is no single proportion of accommodation that can be utilized to anticipate a relationship with nearsightedness. Accommodative facility results have been demonstrated to be a helpful indicator of likely visual distress and furthermore of scholarly achievement.11 Low accommodative facility is additionally utilized as an indicative sign for accommodative insufficiency. Contrasts in execution have been found among indicative and asymptomatic patients and diverse refractive blunders gatherings.12 Myopes showed lower speeds of accommodation and disaccommodation during distance facility estimation, alongside longer time spans.12 At close, the accommodative facility rate was comparative in both refractive gatherings; no critical contrasts in velocities of accommodation were found between the two gatherings, despite the fact that speed of disaccommodation was somewhat lower in myopes when contrasted with emmetropes. Nearsighted eyes have diminished accommodative facility at distance and accommodative responsiveness to both positive and negative defocus is moderate. Be that as it may, accommodative facility as a test doesn’t have adequate ability to separate eyes with nearsightedness from other refractive errors.13,14

Materials and Methods

Study design and population

This cross-sectional assessment was brought out through discernment. Information of 40 subjects, of which 20 were emmetropes and 20 myopes, was taken, all in the age range of 18 years to 24 years. This assessment uncovers about the accommodative status like accommodative facility. The respondents were picked randomly at their own will. Individuals who were not intrigued to take part in this appraisal were dismissed.

Research tool

Visual acuity for distance and close was taken and binocular vision evaluation was done. First cover test, cover uncover test, and alternative cover test was done. NPA (Near Point of Accommodation) and NPC (Near Point of Convergence) were assessed using RAF ruler. NRA (Negative Relative Accommodation) and PRA (Positive Relative Accommodation) were assessed using besides, short and close to vision diagram. NFV (Negative Fusional Vergence) and PFV (Positive Fusional Vergence) were assessed using horizontal prism bar. The accommodative office of each understudy was assessed using ±2.00D flipper. Stereopsis of the understudies was assessed using TNO and red and green displays. After that MEM (Monocular Estimation Method), Broad H test was performed to actually look at the visual motility.

Data collection and analysis

The respondents were taught about the explanation and targets of the appraisal prior to taking the consent from them. With the coordinated evaluation, data were gathered from them. Data examination was performed using Microsoft Excel 2007 and SPSS-V.18.0. Real assessment of connection was done by using Paired-t test.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Subjects within the age group of 18-24 years, with the vision of 6/6 and nearsightedness were enrolled for the study. Subjects with hypermetropia, fundamental sickness, visual medical procedure, nystagmus, amblyopia were barred from the study. Measurable investigation of correlation was finished by utilizing Paired-t test.

Results

For 20 emmetropes, the mean accommodative facility in right eye was 13.850 cycles per minute (cpm) and the standard deviation was 1.531. For 20 myopes, the mean accommodative facility in right eye was 8.100 cpm and standard deviation was 1.071. The p-value for accommodative facility in right eye was p<0.001 and it was significant. For 20 emmetropes, the mean accommodative facility in left eye was 13.000 cpm and the standard deviation was 1.487. For 20 myopes, the mean accommodative facility in left eye was 7.750 cpm and the standard deviation was 0.851. The p-value for accommodative facility in left eye was p<0.001 and it was significant. For 20 emmetropes, the mean accommodative facility in both eyes was 11.550 cpm and the standard deviation was 1.146. For 20 myopes, the mean accommodative facility in both eyes was 6.700 cpm and the standard deviation was 0.923. The p-value for accommodative facility in both eyes was p<0.001 and it was significant.

Figure 1 shows the reduced accommodative facility in myopes than in emmetropes

Discussion

Accommodation is the eye’s capacity to change power in order to focus on objects at various distances.15 To focus on a closer object, it is fundamental for the eye to increase its dioptric power. Accommodative facility estimates the speed of accommodative responsiveness (capacity to adjust accommodation quickly and precisely) to blur. Clinically this is estimated either monocularly or binocularly, typically by having the lens exchanged when the objective shows up clear.16

The present study titled “Accommodative facility in emmetropes and myopes” has shown the results that out of 40 subjects, 20 myopes showed reduced accommodative facility when compared to 20 emmetropes. The present study observed less AF (accommodative facility) in right eye of myopes 8.100±1.071 cpm in comparison to 13.850±1.531. In left eye, the mean AF in myopes was 7.750±0.851 cpm and in emmetropes the mean AF was 13.000±1.487 cpm. Less mean AF was observed even in left eye. While checking mean AF in binocularly, less mean AF of 6.700±0.923 cpm was observed in myopes when compared to 11.550±1.146 cpm mean AF in emmetropes.

As we go through the previous studies, it was noted that there was reduced accommodative facility in myopes than in emmetropes.

Ashok Pandian et al.,17 led an investigation on “Accommodative facility in eyes with and without nearsightedness” in year - 1 students. They demonstrated less mean facility for nearsighted eyes at 5.5 ± 2.0 cycles per minute (cpm) in contrast to 6.9 ± 1.7 cpm for eyes with emmetropia or hyperopia. Nearsighted eyes recorded more prominent positive and negative accommodative reaction times than did emmetropic or hyperopia eyes. They tracked down that nearsighted eyes have decreased accommodative facility and accommodative responsiveness to both positive and negative lens.

Hema Radhakrishnan, Peter M Allen, W Neil Charman18 led an examination on “Elements of accommodative facility in myopes”. Subjective and objective target estimations showed a critical lower facility rate in myopes when contrasted with emmetropes (p<0.05). The reaction amplitude of accommodation during facility assignments was observed to be comparative in the two refractive gatherings. They found that there was a critical lower facility rate in myopes when contrasted with emmetropes.

Conclusion

The findings, collected data and the results of our study showed that accommodative facility was reduced in myopes when compared to emmetropes.                                    

Supporting File
References
  1. Daum KM. Accommodative dysfunction. Doc Ophthalmol 1983;55:177-198.
  2. O’ Leary DJ, Allen PM. Facility of accommodation in myopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2001;21:352- 355.
  3. Allen PM, O ‘ Leary DJ. Accommodation functions: Co - dependency & relationship to refractive error. Vision Res 2006;46:491-505.
  4. Vera-Diaz FA, Strang NC, Winn B. Nearwork induced transient myopia during myopia progression. Curr Eye Res 2002;24:289-295.
  5. Radhakrishnan H, Allen PM, Charman WN. Dynamics of accommodative facility in myopes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007;48(9):4375-4382.
  6. Radhakrishnan H, Darshan S, Calver RI, O ‘ Leary DJ. Effect of positive and negative defocus on contrast sensitivity in myopes and non myopes. Vision Res 2004;44:1869-1878.
  7. Adams DW, McBrien NA. Prevalence of myopia & myopic progression in a population of clinical microscopists. Optom Vis Sci 1992;62:88-93.
  8. Ting PW, Mam CS, Edwards MH, Schemid KL. Prevalence of myopia in a group of Hong Kong microscopists. Optom Vis Sci 2004;81:88-93.
  9. Multi DO, Zadnik K. The utility & three predictors of childhood myopia: a Bayesian analysis. Vision Res 1995;35:1345-1352.
  10. Bobier WR, Sivak JG. Orthoptic treatment of subjects showing slow accommodative responses. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1983;60:678-687.
  11. Grosvenor TP. Primary Care Optometry. Chicago: Professional Press;1982. p. 97.
  12. Ciffreda KJ, Lee M. Differential refractive susceptibility to sustained nearwork. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2002;22:372-379.
  13. Zellers JA, Alpert TL, Rouse MW. A review of study of accommodative facility. J Am Optom Assoc 1984;55:31-37.
  14. Campbell FW, Westhecmer G. Dynamics of accommodation responses of the human eyes. J Physiol 1960;151:285-295.
  15. Kasthurirangan S, Glasser A. Influence of amplitude & starting point on accommodative dynamics in humans. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005;46:3463- 3472.
  16. Campbell FW. Correlation of accommodation between the two eyes. J Opt Soc Am 1960;50:738.
  17. Pandian A, Sankaridurg PR, Naduvilath T, et al. Accommodative facility in eyes with and without myopia. Invest ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006;47:4725- 4731.
  18. Allen PM, Weil Charman WN, Radhakrishnan H. Changes in dynamics of accommodation after accommodative facility training in myopes and emmetropes. Vision Res 2010;50(10):947-55.
HealthMinds Logo
RGUHS Logo

© 2024 HealthMinds Consulting Pvt. Ltd. This copyright specifically applies to the website design, unless otherwise stated.

We use and utilize cookies and other similar technologies necessary to understand, optimize, and improve visitor's experience in our site. By continuing to use our site you agree to our Cookies, Privacy and Terms of Use Policies.