RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated novel automatic dual rotational Risley prisms (ADRRPs) as a vergence exercise tool for patients with myopia to improve accommodative lag and accommodative facility. METHODS: Participants with myopia aged 20-24 years were recruited. After vergence exercises with prisms (treatment group) or plano lenses (control group) using ADRRPs for 10 min, measurements were taken using an open-field autorefractor (Grand Seiko WAM-5500) at viewing distances of 0.4 m and 6.0 m. We measured accommodative facility using a ± 2.00 D accommodative flipper. RESULTS: A total of 56 participants (treatment group, 39; control group, 17) performed vergence exercises using ADRRPs. Participants in the treatment group showed improvements in accommodative lag at a 0.4 m viewing distance, with measurements of 0.57 D (right eye; OD) and 0.53 D (left eye; OS) and 0.21 D (OD) and 0.27 D (OS) before and after the exercises, respectively (p < 0.001). Over-refractions using an open-field autorefractor with spherical equivalent contact lenses at a 6.0 m viewing distance were - 0.01 ± 0.30 D (OD) and 0.03 ± 0.34 D (OS) and 0.15 ± 0.32 D (OD) and 0.19 ± 0.28 D (OS) before and after the exercises, respectively (difference + 0.16 D; p < 0.001). Accommodative facility values before and after exercises were 14.88 ± 3.36 and 15.59 ± 3.60 cpm, respectively (p < 0.01). No significant differences in accommodative lag, relaxation, and accommodative facility before and after exercise were observed in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Using ADRRPs in vergence exercises can improve accommodative lag, accommodative facility, and accommodative relaxation in adults with myopia. Further research to evaluate persistent and long-term effects is needed.
RESUMO
Purposes: This study discussed the accommodative response and pupil size of myopic adults using a double-mirror system (DMS). The viewing distance could be extended to 2.285 m by using a DMS, which resulted in a reduction and increase in the accommodative response and pupil size, respectively. By using a DMS, the reduction of the accommodative response could improve eye fatigue with near work. Method: Sixty subjects aged between 18 and 22 years old were recruited in this study, and the average age was 20.67 ± 1.09. There were two main steps in the experimental process. In the first step, we examined the subjects' refraction state and visual function, and then fitted disposable contact lenses with a corresponding refractive error. In the second step, the subjects gazed at an object from a viewing distance of 0.4 m and at a virtual image through a DMS, respectively, and the accommodative response and pupil size were measured using an open field autorefractor. Results: When the subjects gazed at the object from a distance of 0.4 m, or gazed at the virtual image through a DMS, the mean value of the accommodative response was 1.74 ± 0.43 or 0.16 ± 0.47 D, and the pupil size was 3.98 ± 0.06 mm or 4.18 ± 0.58 mm, respectively. With an increase in the viewing distance from 0.4 m to 2.285 m, the accommodative response and pupil size were significantly reduced about 1.58 D and enlarged about 0.2 mm, respectively. For three asterisk targets of different sizes (1 cm × 1 cm, 2 cm × 2 cm, and 3 cm × 3 cm), the mean accommodative response and pupil size through the DMS was 0.19 ± 0.16, 0.27 ± 0.24, 0.26 ± 0.19 D; and 4.20 ± 1.02, 3.94 ± 0.73, 4.21 ± 0.57 mm, respectively. The changes of the accommodative response and pupil size were not significant with the size of the targets (p > 0.05). In the low or high myopia group, the accommodative response of 0.4 m and 2.285 m was 1.68 ± 0.42 D and 0.21 ± 0.48 D; and 1.88 ± 0.25 D and 0.05 ± 0.40 D, respectively. The accommodative response was significantly reduced by 1.47 D and 1.83 D for these two groups. The accommodative microfluctuations (AMFs) were stable when a DMS was used; on the contrary, the AMFs were unstable at a viewing distance of 0.4 m. Conclusions: In this study, the imaging through a DMS extended the viewing distance and enlarged the image, and resulted in a reduction in the accommodative response and an increase in the pupil size. For the low myopia group and the high myopia group, the accommodative response and pupil size were statistically significantly different before and after the use of the DMS. The reduction of the accommodative response could be applied for the improvement of asthenopia.
