Akuoma Alilionwu, Candid O Ahuama, Chikezie G Ihesiulor* and Ubani A Udo

Optometry, Abia State University, Okigwe, Nigeria

*Corresponding Author: Chikezie G Ihesiulor, Optometry, Abia State University, Okigwe, Nigeria.

Received: July 24, 2023; Published: February 06, 2024

Abstract

This research was carried out to compare the subjective and objective clinical methods of assessing the Amplitude of Accommodation (AA). A total of 109 university students, (54 males and 55 females), with mean age of 20.2 ± 4.3 years were selected randomly. The subjective AA was measured using the push-up to blur method and minus-lens to blur method, while the objective AA was measured using the modified dynamic retinoscopy method. A test of reliability (Z test) showed that there is a statistically significant difference between the mean AA measured using push-up to blur method and minus-lens to blur method, push up to blur method and modified dynamic retinoscopy, minus-lens to blur method and modified dynamic retinoscopy with Z-calculated value of (12.9), (27.5) and (15.0) respectively. Analysis of variance at P = 0.05 level of significance showed that there is a statistically significant difference in the mean AA measured using push-up to blur method, minus-lens to blur method and modified dynamic retinoscopy with age (P-value<0.05). Also, analysis of variance at P = 0.05 level showed that there is no statistically significant difference in the mean AA measured using push-up to blur method, minus-lens to blur method and modified dynamic retinoscopy with gender with (P-value >0.05). The push-up to blur method gave the highest mean AA with 11.8 ± 2.4D followed by minus-lens to blur method and modified dynamic retinoscopy with 8.2 ± 1.9D and 5.2 ± 0.8D respectively. The subjective push-up to blur method overestimates the AA. This may affect its accuracy. The study highlights the need for more reliable AA measurement.

Keywords: mplitude of Accommodation; Push-up-to blur; Minus-lens-to blur; Accommodation

References

1. Rosenfield M. Clinical Assessment of Accommodation in: Rosenfield, M., and Logan, N. (Eds) optometry: science, techniques and clinical management 2^nd Edinburgh: Elsevier (2009): 230-232.
2. Nakazawa M and Chtsuki K. “Apparent Accommodation in Pseudophakic eyes after implantation of posterior chamber intraocular lenses”. American Journal of Ophthalmology 96 (1984): 435-438.
3. Burns DH., et al. “A review of depth of focus in measurement of the amplitude of accommodation”. Vision3 (2018): 37.
4. Day M., et al. “The effect of modulating ocular depth of focus upon accommodation microfluctuations in myopic and emmetropic subjects”. Vision Research2 (2009): 211-218.
5. Burns D., et al. “Clinical measurement of amplitude of accommodation”. Optometry in Practice3 (2014): 75-85.
6. Bababekova Y., et al. “Font size and viewing distance of handheld smart phones”. Optometry and Vision Science 88 (2011): 795-797.
7. Elliott D B. “Clinical procedures in primary eye care (5th ed.)”. Elsevier/ButterworthHeinemann (2021).
8. Turner M. “Observation on the normal subjective amplitude of accommodation”. British Journal of Physiological Optics 15 (1955): 70-100.
9. Duane A. “Studies in monocular and binocular accommodation with their clinical applications”. Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society 20 (1922): 132-157.
10. Moss S and Klein B. “Accommodative ability in younger onset diabetes”. Archives of Ophthalmology 47 (1987): 745-759.
11. Anderson H., et al. “Minus-Lens stimulated accommodative amplitude decreases sigmoidally with age; a study of objectively measured accommodative amplitudes from age 3”. Investigative Ophthalmology and Vision Science 49 (2008): 2919-2926.
12. Donders F. “On the Anomalies of the Accommodation and Refraction of the Eye (W. Moore Transl)”. Uk; The Now Sydenham society (1864): 207-209.
13. Leon A., et al. “A comparison of the reliability of dynamic retinoscopy and subjective measurements of the amplitude of accommodation”. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 32 (2012): 133-141.
14. Heath G. “The influence of visual acuity on accommodative responses of the eye”. American Journal of Optometry and Archives of American Academy of Optometry 21 (1956): 345-363.
15. Antona B., et al. “Repeatability intraexaminer and agreement in Amplitude of accommodation measurement”. Graetes Arelives of Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 247 (2009): 121-127.
16. Charman W. “The path to presbyopia; straight or crooked?” Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 9 (1989): 424-430.
17. Mathebula SD., et al. “Comparison of the amplitude of accommodation determined subjectively and objectively in South African University students”. African Vision and Eye Health1 (2018): 2-8.
18. Rutsein RP., et al. “Comparing the amplitude of accommodation determined objectively and subjectively”. Optometry and Vision Science6 (1993): 496 -500.
19. Chattopadhyay DN and Seal GN. “Amplitude of Accommodation in different age groups and age of onset of presbyopia in Bengalce population”. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 32 (1984): 85-87.
20. Leon A., et al. “Age and the amplitude of accommodation measured using dynamic retinoscopy”. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 1 (2016): 5-12.
21. Castagno VD., et al. “Amplitude of accommodation in school children”. Current Eye Research4 (2017): 604-610.
22. Mathebula SD., et al. “A comparison in university of the amplitude of accommodation determined subjectively”. African Vision and Eye Health1 1 (2016): 0-14.
23. Godwin OO., et al. “Investigation of amplitude of accommodation among Ghanaian school children”. Clinical and Experimental Optometry 95 (2012): 2-10.
24. Chen Y., et al. “Comparison of three monocular methods for measuring accommodative stimulus-response curves”. Clinical and Experimental Optometry2 (2016): 155-161.
25. Francisco L., et al. “Changes in the objective amplitude of accommodation with pupil size”. Optometry and Vision Science 10 (2014): 1215-1220.
26. Momeni-Moghaddam H., et al. “Accommodative amplitude using the minus lens at different near distances”. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology3 (2017): 223-227.
27. Ovensen-Ogbomo GO and Nosakhora E. “Age, amplitude of accommodation and near additional power of adult Nigerians”. Journal of Nigerian Optometric Association1 (2018): 14-19.

Citation

Citation: Chikezie G Ihesiulor., et al. “The Comparison of Subjective and Objective Clinical Methods of Assessing Amplitude of Accommodation".Acta Scientific Ophthalmology 7.3 (2024): 10-26.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2024 Chikezie G Ihesiulor., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.