Comparison of objective accommodation in phakic and pseudophakic eyes between age groups
- 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 PresbyopiaNotes
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.Schachar RA (2006) The mechanism of accommodation and presbyopia. Int Ophthalmol Clin 46:39–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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.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.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.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.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.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.Sawusch MR, Guyton DL (1991) Optimal astigmatism to enhance depth of focus after cataract surgery. Ophthalmology 98:1025–1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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.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.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.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.Ravalico G, Baccara F (1990) Apparent accommodation in pseudophakic eyes. Acta Ophthalmol 68:604–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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.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.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.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.Atchison DA, Capper EJ, McCabe KL (1994) Critical subjective measurement of amplitude of accommodation. Optom Vis Sci 71:699–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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.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.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.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.Sheppard AL, Davies LN (2010) Clinical evaluation of the grand Seiko auto ref/keratometer WAM-5500. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 30:143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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.Findl O (2005) Intraocular lenses for restoring accommodation: hope and reality. J Refract Surg 21:321–323Google Scholar
- 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.Wang B, Ciuffreda KJ (2006) Depth-of-focus of the human eye: theory and clinical implications. Surv Ophthalmol 51:75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar