Comparison of subjective and objective accommodation amplitude values

Year 2023, Volume: 6 Issue: 2, 263 - 267, 27.03.2023

Şerife Gülhan Konuk , Raşit Kılıç , Yunus Emre Kuyucu

https://doi.org/10.32322/jhsm.1225628

Abstract

Aim: Comparison of accommodation amplitude values measured using autorefractometer, push up and minus lens technique.
Material and Method: In this randomized, prospective study, both eyes of 75 healthy individuals between the ages of 15 and 40 were included in the study. They were divided into 5 groups as 15-20 age group 1, 21-25 age group 2, 26-30 age group 3, 31-35 age group 4, 36-40 age group 5 To measure the accommodation amplitude, the minus lens and push up technique were used as subjective methods, and the autorefractometer Tonoref III was used as the objective. The correlation between the measurement methods and the reproducibility of the autorefractory measurements were evaluated. In addition, changes in accommodation measurements with age, gender and pupil diameter changes were investigated.
Results: The mean accommodation amplitude values were 4.86±1.73 D in the minus lens technique, 8.79±4.58 D in the push up technique, and 2.77±1.93 D in the autorefractometer measurement. Autorefractometer accommodation amplitude values were found to decrease significantly with age (p=0.000). It was seen that the correlation between autorefractometry and subjective methods, minus lens and push up was significant and correlated (p=0.000, r=0.47, p=0.001, r=0.28, respectively). Intraclass correlation coefficients of Tonoref III accommodation amplitude were found to be 0.935.
Conclusion: Objective accommodation amplitude measurements made using Tonoref III were found to be correlated with subjective methods, but lower values were detected compared to subjective methods.

Keywords

minus lens technique, push up technique, Amplitude of accommodation

References

• Glasser A, Kaufman PL. The mechanism of accommodation in primates. Ophthalmology 1999; 106: 863-72.
• Hofstetter HW. A comparison of Duane’s and Donder’s tables of the amplitude of accommodation. Am J Optom Arch Am Acad Optom 1944; 21: 345-62.
• Win-Hall DM, Glasser A. Objective accommodation measurements in prepresbyopic eyes using an autorefractor and an aberrometer. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008; 34: 774-84.
• León A, Estrada JM, Rosenfield M. Age and the amplitude of accommodation measured using dynamic retinoscopy. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2016; 36: 5-12.
• Küchle M, Seitz B, Langenbucher A, et al. Accommodative Intraocular Lens Study Group. Comparison of 6-month results of implantation of the 1CU accommodative intraocular lens with conventional intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology 2004; 111: 318-24.
• Chen Y, Zhang C, Ding C, et al. Repeatability of two subjective accommodative amplitude measurements and agreement with an objective method. Clin Exp Optom 2019; 102: 412-7.
• Anderson HA, Stuebing KK. Subjective versus objective accommodative amplitude: Preschool to presbyopia. Optom Vis Sci 2014; 91: 1290-301.
• Küçük B, Sırakaya E. Minus Lens Tekniği ve Otorefraktometre ile Ölçülen Subjektif ve Objektif Akomodasyon Amplitüdü Değerlerinin Karşılaştırılması. MN Oftalmoloji 2020; 27: 16-21.
• Khan A, Petropoulos IN, Ponirakis G, Malik RA. Visual complications in diabetes mellitus: beyond retinopathy. Diabet Med 2017; 34: 478-84.
• Adnan, Efron N, Mathur A, et al. Amplitude of accommodation in type 1 diabetes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2014; 55: 7014-8.
• Satgunam P, Datta S, Sumalini R. Near vision in individuals with Down syndrome: a vision screening study. Eye (Lond) 2019; 33: 1254-60.
• Cerman E, Akkaya Turhan S, Eraslan M, Kahraman Koytak P, Kilinc O, Tanridag T. Topiramate and accommodation: Does topiramate cause accommodative dysfunction? Can J Ophthalmol 2017; 52: 20–5.
• Orman B, Benozzi G. Pharmacological strategies for treating presbyopia. Current Opinion in Ophthalmology 2021; 32: 319-23.
• Anderson HA, Hentz G, Glasser A, Stuebing KK, Manny RE. Minus-lens-stimulated accommodative amplitude decreases sigmoidally with age: a study of objectively measured accommodative amplitudes from age 3. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008; 49: 2919-26.
• Wold JE, Hu A, Chen S, Glasser A. Subjective and objective measurement of human accommodative amplitude. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29: 1878-88.
• Hashemi H, Nabovati P, Yekta AA, et al. Amplitude of accommodation in an 11- to 17-year-old Iranian population. Clin Exp Optom 2017; 100: 162–6.
• Yekta A, Khabazkhoob M, Hashemi H, et al. Binocular and Accommodative Characteristics in a Normal Population. Strabismus 2017; 25: 5-11.
• Lara F, Bernal-Molina P, Fernández-Sánchez V, López-Gil N. Changes in the objective amplitude of accommodation with pupil size. Optom Vis Sci 2014; 91: 1215-20.
• Ozulken K, Kiziltoprak H. Objective Accommodation Amplitude Measurements Using a New Autorefractometer Device. Beyoglu Eye J 2019; 4: 149-55.
• Koo TK, Li MY. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J Chiropr Med 2016; 15: 155-63.
• Weng CC, Hwang DK, Liu CJ. Repeatability of the amplitude of accommodation measured by a new generation autorefractor. PLoS One 2020; 15: e0224733.