Ocular motor triad with single vision contact lenses compared to spectacle lenses

Hunt, Olivia; Wolffsohn, James S.; García-Resúa, Carlos

doi:10.1016/j.clae.2006.08.004

Cited by 30 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We should add that the subjects were students of optometry, and therefore clearly understood the instructions on methodology. Theoretical differences in accommodation and vergence demands when wearing single vision SCL compared to spectacle lenses have been established with the support of clinical results [13,14,16,35]. For the sake of convention, accommodation is usually considered to take place at the spectacle plane.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Contact lenses vs spectacles in myopes: is there any difference in accommodative and binocular function?

Jiménez

Martínez-Almeida

Salas

et al. 2010

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The results found in this study show a definite trend towards poorer accommodative and vergence function with the use of contact lenses in comparison to glasses. This downward trend, though not statistically significant in accommodative function (lower PRA values and less lens amplitude of accommodation) might suggest that temporal insufficiency in the accommodation process could be occurring while contact lenses are used, thereby possibly creating a lag in accommodation to reduce associated overconvergence. This would be manifested in more esophoric values being found in the vergence function. The higher accommodative lags found in this study with SCL could indicate that prolonged use of SCL in near tasks may provoke a continuous hyperopic retinal defocus, a risk factor for the onset and progression of myopia, as indicated in numerous studies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, it is widely known that some myopes have difficulty with near vision when they change from spectacles to contact lenses [15,16]. The general effect is as if the near vision task was moved slightly closer to the eye, since increased accommodation and greater convergence effort are required when wearing contact lenses.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contact lenses vs spectacles in myopes: is there any difference in accommodative and binocular function?

Jiménez

Martínez-Almeida

Salas

et al. 2010

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This provides further explanation for the observation that hyperopes enter presbyopia before myopes (Rabbetts and Mallen, 2007). In addition, this augments the well‐known clinical observation that spectacle lens effectivity, also a vergence effect, causes hyperopes to need to accommodate more through their distance spectacles than myopes which is also why hyperopes require near vision correction earlier (Hunt et al. , 2006).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

Vergence analysis reveals the influence of axial distances on accommodation with age and axial ametropia

Davies

Dunne

Gibson

et al. 2010

Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite numerous investigations, the aetiology and mechanism of accommodation and presbyopia remains equivocal. Using Gaussian first-order ray tracing calculations, we examine the contribution that ocular axial distances make to the accommodation response. Further, the influence of age and ametropia are also considered. The data show that all changes in axial distances during accommodation reduce the accommodation response, with the reduction in anterior chamber depth contributing most to this overall attenuation. Although the total power loss due to the changes in axial distances remained constant with increasing age, hyperopes exhibited less accommodation than myopes. The study, therefore, enhances our understanding of biometric accommodative changes and demonstrates the utility of vergence analysis in the assessment of accommodation.

show abstract

“…Indeed, anecdotal and published evidence 49 suggests hypermetropic and emmetropic patients manifest presbyopia before myopic patients. The origin of this phenomenon has been traditionally thought to arise from near vision effectivity of myopic spectacle lenses (reducing the accommodative demand for myopic spectacle wearers) 50 or the increased vitreous chamber depth associated with myopia (requiring a smaller change in axial ocular distances to produce accommodation due to the relatively more distant retinal plane). 51 However, it is feasible myopic structural changes occurring during adolescence, perhaps lenticular thinning 52,53 and lenticular equatorial expansion, 53 may preserve the accommodative ability and delay the onset of presbyopia.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A longitudinal study of accommodative changes in biometry during incipient presbyopia

Laughton

Sheppard

Davies

2015

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To profile accommodative biometric changes longitudinally and to determine the influence of age-related ocular structural changes on the accommodative response prior to the onset of presbyopia. Methods: Twenty participants (aged 34-41 years) were reviewed at six-monthly intervals over two and a half years. At each visit, ocular biometry was measured with the LenStar biometer (www.Haag-Streit.com) in response to 0.00, 3.00 and 4.50 D stimuli. Accommodative responses were measured by the WAM 5500 Auto Ref/Keratometer (www.grandseiko.com). Results: During accommodation, anterior chamber depth reduced (F = 29, p < 0.001), whereas crystalline lens thickness (F = 39, p < 0.001) and axial length (F = 5.4, p = 0.009) increased. The accommodative response (F = 5.5, p = 0.001) and the change in anterior chamber depth (F = 3.1, p = 0.039), crystalline lens thickness (F = 3.0, p = 0.042) and axial length (F = 2.5, p = 0.038) in response to the 4.50 D accommodative target reduced after 2.5 years. However, the change in anterior chamber depth (F = 2.2, p = 0.097), crystalline lens thickness (F = 1.7, p = 0.18) and axial length (F = 1.0, p = 0.40) per dioptre of accommodation exerted remained invariant after 2.5 years. The increase in disaccommodated crystalline lens thickness with age was not significantly associated with the reduction in accommodative response (R = 0.32, p = 0.17). Conclusion: Despite significant age-related structural changes in disaccommodated biometry, the change in biometry per dioptre of accommodation exerted remained invariant with age. The present study supports the Helmholtz theory of accommodation and suggests an increase in lenticular stiffness is primarily responsible for the onset of presbyopia.

show abstract

Ocular motor triad with single vision contact lenses compared to spectacle lenses

Cited by 30 publications

References 11 publications

Contact lenses vs spectacles in myopes: is there any difference in accommodative and binocular function?

Contact lenses vs spectacles in myopes: is there any difference in accommodative and binocular function?

Vergence analysis reveals the influence of axial distances on accommodation with age and axial ametropia

A longitudinal study of accommodative changes in biometry during incipient presbyopia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About