Purchase this article with an account.
Yunyun Chen, Wanqing Jin, Zhili Zheng, Bjorn Drobe, Hao Chen; Comparison of three methods to measure objective amplitude of accommodation. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2015;56(7 ):6006.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
To compare objective amplitudes of accommodation measured by autorefraction associated with a motorized Badal system in static and dynamic conditions and objective minus lens technique.
Thirty-one young adults (age 23.35 ± 2.04 years) were enrolled in the study. Subjects’ refraction ranged from +0.25 to -6.00DS with astigmatism less than 0.50DC. Refractive errors were corrected by contact lenses. Accommodative response was measured using Grand Seiko WAM-5500 open field autorefractor. Accommodation was stimulated using a static (SB) or dynamic (DB) (speed 0.25D/s) Badal system with a high contrast distance fixation target or using minus lens technique (ML), the fixation target placed at 33 cm. Objective amplitude of accommodation was defined as difference between maximum and minimum responses for SB and DB, and as difference between maximum response and distance autorefraction for ML.
Objective amplitudes of accommodation measured using SB and DB were similar (respectively 5.58 ±0.85D and 5.62 ±1.34D; p=0.80 Fisher LSD). Mean interdevice difference was SB-DB= -0.05D with 95% limits of agreement of [-1.12; 1.02] D. ML gave significantly higher accommodative responses compared to SB and DB (6.17±0.90D, p<0.05 Fisher LSD). Mean interdevice difference were ML-SB=+0.60D and ML-DB=+0.55D with 95% limits of agreement of respectively [-0.06; 1.47D] D and [-0.34; 1.44] D.
Static and dynamic Badal techniques underestimated objective amplitude of accommodation by approximately 10%, compared to minus lens technique. Minification of minus lenses and proximal cues of fixation target may be responsible for this difference.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only