We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparison of objective accommodation in phakic and pseudophakic eyes between age groups.
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2019 January 31
PURPOSE: To compare objective accommodation of phakic and pseudophakic eyes between two different age groups.
METHODS: Eighty-three eyes (83 participants aged ≥ 40 years) with a visual acuity of 20/25 or better, and refractive error < spherical - 1.0 diopters (D) and cylindrical 1.0 D, were included. Forty-four patients had undergone phacoemulsification and monofocal intraocular lens implantation and were examined 6 months post-surgery. Participants were divided into groups 1 (pseudophakic, age < 60 years), 2 (pseudophakic, ≥ 60 years), 3 (phakic, < 60 years), and 4 (phakic, ≥ 60 years). Objective accommodation and pupil diameter to 2.0- and 3.0-D stimuli were measured with a binocular open-field autorefractor.
RESULTS: The mean objective accommodation was 0.29 ± 0.47 D, 0.01 ± 0.21 D, 1.00 ± 0.88 D, and 0.01 ± 0.13 to a 2.0-D stimulus, and 0.26 ± 0.51 D, - 0.06 ± 0.21 D, 1.42 ± 1.21 D, and - 0.06 ± 0.21 to a 3.0-D stimulus in groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. For both stimuli, the values in group 1 exceeded those in groups 2 and 4, and were smaller than those in group 3, while the values in group 3 exceeded those in groups 2 and 4. The mean pupillary diameter was - 0.5 ± 0.8 mm, - 0.3 ± 0.8 mm, - 0.6 ± 0.5 mm, and - 0.6 ± 0.9 mm to a 2.0-D stimulus, and - 0.6 ± 0.8 mm, - 0.6 ± 0.8 mm, - 0.9 ± 0.5 mm, and - 1.0 ± 1.1 mm to a 3.0-D stimulus in groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. There was significant correlation between objective accommodation and changes of pupil size for both stimuli.
CONCLUSION: Age seems to play a role in objective accommodation among relatively young pseudophakic patients.
METHODS: Eighty-three eyes (83 participants aged ≥ 40 years) with a visual acuity of 20/25 or better, and refractive error < spherical - 1.0 diopters (D) and cylindrical 1.0 D, were included. Forty-four patients had undergone phacoemulsification and monofocal intraocular lens implantation and were examined 6 months post-surgery. Participants were divided into groups 1 (pseudophakic, age < 60 years), 2 (pseudophakic, ≥ 60 years), 3 (phakic, < 60 years), and 4 (phakic, ≥ 60 years). Objective accommodation and pupil diameter to 2.0- and 3.0-D stimuli were measured with a binocular open-field autorefractor.
RESULTS: The mean objective accommodation was 0.29 ± 0.47 D, 0.01 ± 0.21 D, 1.00 ± 0.88 D, and 0.01 ± 0.13 to a 2.0-D stimulus, and 0.26 ± 0.51 D, - 0.06 ± 0.21 D, 1.42 ± 1.21 D, and - 0.06 ± 0.21 to a 3.0-D stimulus in groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. For both stimuli, the values in group 1 exceeded those in groups 2 and 4, and were smaller than those in group 3, while the values in group 3 exceeded those in groups 2 and 4. The mean pupillary diameter was - 0.5 ± 0.8 mm, - 0.3 ± 0.8 mm, - 0.6 ± 0.5 mm, and - 0.6 ± 0.9 mm to a 2.0-D stimulus, and - 0.6 ± 0.8 mm, - 0.6 ± 0.8 mm, - 0.9 ± 0.5 mm, and - 1.0 ± 1.1 mm to a 3.0-D stimulus in groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. There was significant correlation between objective accommodation and changes of pupil size for both stimuli.
CONCLUSION: Age seems to play a role in objective accommodation among relatively young pseudophakic patients.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app