Advertisement

Comparison of objective accommodation in phakic and pseudophakic eyes between age groups

  • Byunghoon Chung
  • Seonghee Choi
  • Yong Woo Ji
  • Eung Kweon Kim
  • Kyoung Yul Seo
  • Tae-im KimEmail author
Cataract
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To compare objective accommodation of phakic and pseudophakic eyes between two different age groups.

Methods

Eighty-three eyes (83 participants aged ≥ 40 years) with a visual acuity of 20/25 or better, and refractive error < spherical − 1.0 diopters (D) and cylindrical 1.0 D, were included. Forty-four patients had undergone phacoemulsification and monofocal intraocular lens implantation and were examined 6 months post-surgery. Participants were divided into groups 1 (pseudophakic, age < 60 years), 2 (pseudophakic, ≥ 60 years), 3 (phakic, < 60 years), and 4 (phakic, ≥ 60 years). Objective accommodation and pupil diameter to 2.0- and 3.0-D stimuli were measured with a binocular open-field autorefractor.

Results

The mean objective accommodation was 0.29 ± 0.47 D, 0.01 ± 0.21 D, 1.00 ± 0.88 D, and 0.01 ± 0.13 to a 2.0-D stimulus, and 0.26 ± 0.51 D, − 0.06 ± 0.21 D, 1.42 ± 1.21 D, and − 0.06 ± 0.21 to a 3.0-D stimulus in groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. For both stimuli, the values in group 1 exceeded those in groups 2 and 4, and were smaller than those in group 3, while the values in group 3 exceeded those in groups 2 and 4. The mean pupillary diameter was − 0.5 ± 0.8 mm, − 0.3 ± 0.8 mm, − 0.6 ± 0.5 mm, and − 0.6 ± 0.9 mm to a 2.0-D stimulus, and − 0.6 ± 0.8 mm, − 0.6 ± 0.8 mm, − 0.9 ± 0.5 mm, and − 1.0 ± 1.1 mm to a 3.0-D stimulus in groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. There was significant correlation between objective accommodation and changes of pupil size for both stimuli.

Conclusion

Age seems to play a role in objective accommodation among relatively young pseudophakic patients.

Keywords

Accommodation Pseudoaccommodation Pseudophakia Presbyopia 

Notes

Funding

This research was supported by a grant of the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant number, HI18C1111).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Schachar RA (2006) The mechanism of accommodation and presbyopia. Int Ophthalmol Clin 46:39–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Koretz JF, Cook CA, Kaufman PL (1997) Accommodation and presbyopia in the human eye. Changes in the anterior segment and crystalline lens with focus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 38:569–578Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hayashi K, Hayashi H (2006) Comparison of amplitude of apparent accommodation in pseudophakic eyes with that of normal accommodation in phakic eyes in various age groups. Eye (Lond) 20:290–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hayashi K, Hayashi H, Nakao F, Hayashi F (2003) Aging changes in apparent accommodation in eyes with a monofocal intraocular lens. Am J Ophthalmol 135:432–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Win-Hall DM, Glasser A (2009) Objective accommodation measurements in pseudophakic subjects using an autorefractor and an aberrometer. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Win-Hall DM, Ostrin LA, Kasthurirangan S, Glasser A (2007) Objective accommodation measurement with the grand Seiko and Hartinger coincidence refractometer. Optom Vis Sci 84:879–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wold JE, Hu A, Chen S, Glasser A (2003) Subjective and objective measurement of human accommodative amplitude. J Cataract Refract Surg 29:1878–1888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sawusch MR, Guyton DL (1991) Optimal astigmatism to enhance depth of focus after cataract surgery. Ophthalmology 98:1025–1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fukuyama M, Oshika T, Amano S, Yoshitomi F (1999) Relationship between apparent accommodation and corneal multifocality in pseudophakic eyes. Ophthalmology 106:1178–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nemeth G, Lipecz A, Szalai E, Berta A, Modis L Jr (2013) Accommodation in phakic and pseudophakic eyes measured with subjective and objective methods. J Cataract Refract Surg 39:1534–1542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nakazawa M, Ohtsuki K (1983) Apparent accommodation in pseudophakic eyes after implantation of posterior chamber intraocular lenses. Am J Ophthalmol 96:435–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nakazawa M, Ohtsuki K (1984) Apparent accommodation in pseudophakic eyes after implantation of posterior chamber intraocular lenses: optical analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 25:1458–1460Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ravalico G, Baccara F (1990) Apparent accommodation in pseudophakic eyes. Acta Ophthalmol 68:604–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lara F, Bernal-Molina P, Fernandez-Sanchez V, Lopez-Gil N (2014) Changes in the objective amplitude of accommodation with pupil size. Optom Vis Sci 91:1215–1220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lopez-Gil N, Fernandez-Sanchez V (2010) The change of spherical aberration during accommodation and its effect on the accommodation response. J Vis 10:12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hayashi K, Yoshida M, Manabe S, Hayashi H (2010) Comparison of visual function between phakic eyes and pseudophakic eyes with a monofocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 36:20–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tsorbatzoglou A, Nemeth G, Math J, Berta A (2006) Pseudophakic accommodation and pseudoaccommodation under physiological conditions measured with partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 32:1345–1350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Atchison DA, Capper EJ, McCabe KL (1994) Critical subjective measurement of amplitude of accommodation. Optom Vis Sci 71:699–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Langenbucher A, Huber S, Nguyen NX, Seitz B, Gusek-Schneider GC, Kuchle M (2003) Measurement of accommodation after implantation of an accommodating posterior chamber intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 29:677–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lopez-Gil N, Fernandez-Sanchez V, Legras R, Montes-Mico R, Lara F, Nguyen-Khoa JL (2008) Accommodation-related changes in monochromatic aberrations of the human eye as a function of age. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 49:1736–1743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pugh JR, Winn B (1988) Modification of the canon auto ref R1 for use as a continuously recording infra-red optometer. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 8:460–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tsuneyoshi Y, Negishi K, Tsubota K (2017) Importance of accommodation and eye dominance for measuring objective refractions. Am J Ophthalmol 177:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sheppard AL, Davies LN (2010) Clinical evaluation of the grand Seiko auto ref/keratometer WAM-5500. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 30:143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Win-Hall DM, Houser J, Glasser A (2010) Static and dynamic accommodation measured using the WAM-5500 autorefractor. Optom Vis Sci 87:873–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Findl O (2005) Intraocular lenses for restoring accommodation: hope and reality. J Refract Surg 21:321–323Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kriechbaum K, Findl O, Koeppl C, Menapace R, Drexler W (2005) Stimulus-driven versus pilocarpine-induced biometric changes in pseudophakic eyes. Ophthalmology 112:453–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wang B, Ciuffreda KJ (2006) Depth-of-focus of the human eye: theory and clinical implications. Surv Ophthalmol 51:75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Byunghoon Chung
    • 1
  • Seonghee Choi
    • 1
  • Yong Woo Ji
    • 1
    • 2
  • Eung Kweon Kim
    • 1
    • 3
  • Kyoung Yul Seo
    • 1
  • Tae-im Kim
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.The Institute of Vision Research, Department of OphthalmologyYonsei University College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of OphthalmologyNational Health Insurance Service Ilsan HospitalGoyangRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Corneal Dystrophy Research InstituteYonsei University College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations