April 2011
Volume 52, Issue 14
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2011
Effect Of Scleral Buckling (SB) Procedure On Accommodation
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Jared P. McDonald
    Ophthal & Vis Sci,
    Univ of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
  • Mary Ann A. Croft
    Ophthal & Vis Sciences,
    Univ of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
  • Paul L. Kaufman
    Ophthal & Visual Science, Univ of Wisconsin Sch of Med & Public Hlth, Madison, Wisconsin
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  Jared P. McDonald, None; Mary Ann A. Croft, None; Paul L. Kaufman, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2011, Vol.52, 848. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Jared P. McDonald, Mary Ann A. Croft, Paul L. Kaufman; Effect Of Scleral Buckling (SB) Procedure On Accommodation. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2011;52(14):848.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Purpose: : A previous report indicated that a SB procedure may induce myopia (ARVO 2002). Our goal was to determine whether accommodation was increased in human patients following a SB procedure

Methods: : Eight subjects, ranging in age from 22 to 64 years, were screened post SB surgery. Accommodation was measured in one or both eyes of each subject. Accommodation was induced pharmacologically by giving 2 drops topically of 4% pilocarpine HCl (PILO) with a 10 min interval. Refraction (Hartinger; HCR) was measured before and after PILO at 15 min intervals. Intraocular distances (A- Scan; Model A-5500), and ultrasound biomicroscopy images (Humphrey Model 840) of the anterior and posterior segments were gathered before and after maximum accommodation was achieved. Accommodation was calculated as the difference between pre-PILO and post-PILO refraction.

Results: : The SB eye of two subjects accommodated 4-5 diopters above the contralateral control eye (CC) and exceeded values in Duane’s curve for their ages of 38 and 53 years. One subject had a lower accommodative amplitude (1.75 diopters) in the SB eye compared to the CC eye. The five remaining subjects showed no significant increase/decrease in accommodation amplitudes in the SB eye verses their CC eye. The differences in intraocular distances between SB and CC eyes (SB-CC) in all eight subjects averaged together showed that the anterior chamber was deeper (by 0.11±0.01 [s.e.m.] mm), the lens thicker (by 0.15±0.11mm), and the globe length longer (by 0.45±0.22mm), but the differences were not statistically significant. However, further analyses are proceeding to compare pre SB accommodative amplitudes obtained clinically in the ipsilateral eye, surgical techniques and intraocular distances.

Conclusions: : The varied accommodative amplitude results following the SB surgical procedure to correct a retinal detachment in these 8 subjects may be due to differences in SB surgical techniques used and changes in intraocular distances.

Keywords: accommodation • presbyopia • retinal detachment 

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.