Journal Search Engine
Search Advanced Search Adode Reader(link)
Download PDF Export Citaion korean bibliography PMC previewer
ISSN : 1229-6457(Print)
ISSN : 2466-040X(Online)
The Korean Journal of Vision Science Vol.23 No.2 pp.195-205
DOI : https://doi.org/10.17337/JMBI.2021.23.2.195

Effect of Undercorrection Using Spectacle Lens and Multifocal Soft Contact Lens on Binocular Visual Function

Inn-Jee Park1), Byoung-Sun Chu2)*
1)Dept. of Optometry, Daekyeung University, Professor, Gyeongsan
2)Dept. of Optometry and Vision Science, Daegu Catholic University, Professor, Gyeongsan
* Address reprint requests to Byoung-Sun Chu Dept. of Optometry and Vision Science, Daegu Catholic University, Gyeongsan TEL: +82-53-850-2553, E-mail: bschu@cu.ac.kr
May 25, 2021 June 24, 2021 June 24, 2021

Abstract


Purpose : To investigate the effect of undercorrection using multifocal soft contact lens and +1.00 D spectacle lens on binocular visual function compared to no correction.



Methods : Seventeen individuals (mean age of 23.58±2.12 years) were recruited to participate in this study. Seventeen participants have less than sphere refractive error of ±1.00 D and with less than –0.75 D of astigmatism. Repeated measurements were performed using three different correction options; no correction (NC), correction using multifocal contact lenses (CM) with a plano power for distance and addition up to +1.00 D and undercorrection using +1.00 D spectacle lens (UL). The battery of binocular visual function measures includes amplitude of accommodation, accommodative response, accommodative facility, amplitude of divergence, convergence facility and near/distance phoria.



Results : Types of vision correction had no significant effect on amplitude of accommodation, amplitude of divergence and distant phoria. Accommodative response with no correction was statistically significantly bigger than other two correction options, and CM induced statistically significant accommodative response compared to UL. Also, accommodative facility with no correction and CM were statistically significantly better than accommodative facility of UL. Convergence facility with UL and CM were statistically significantly better than NC. Also, near phoria measured Howell chart with UL and CM were statistically significant than NC whereas near phoria measured with Maddox rod with UL was statistically different from NC.



Conclusion : Multifocal contact lens do not alter important changes in accommodative system yet provide better accommodative stimulus-response and vergence response. The subjects with multifocal contact lens exhibited decreased accommodative response and improved convergence facility. Thus, simultaneous image multifocal contact lenses may be useful for children and young adults who presented accommodative problems or vergence disorder.



안경렌즈와 멀티포컬 콘택트렌즈를 이용한 저교정이 양안시기능에 미치는 영향

박 인지1), 추 병선2)*
1)대경대학교 안경광학과, 교수, 경산
2)대구가톨릭대학교 안경광학과, 교수, 경산

    Ⅰ. Introduction

    Recent development of electronic devices, such as computers, smartphones, and/or tablets, is associated with increased number of symptoms of visual stress at near.1) These symptoms include fatigue, headaches, diplopia, asthenopia, and blurred vision, and these can be caused by accommodative and non-strabismic binocular dysfunction.2-4) This binocular dysfunction and vergence disorder can interfere visual system and person can become symptomatic after prolonged near work.5)

    To alleviate the symptoms of binocular vision problems various methods, such as vision therapy, plus lenses, and prisms, have been used. Plus lens has been used to decrease both the lag of accommodation and esophoria at near.6) Also, plus lenses reduce the demand on negative fusional vergence. In addition, several studies were conducted using prescribed single vision lenses with undercorrection and rationale for these experiments is that undercorrection reduces the accommodative stimulus and demand at near.7-8) And undercorrection can be applied to balance accommodation and vergence systems.6) Positive lens can decrease the lag of accommodation and the measured esophoria. Therefore, plus lens help to reduce demand on negative fusional vergence and improve the equilibrium between accommodation and vergence system.9)

    The ocular parameters which normally used for characterizing the accommodative and vergence system are accommodative amplitude, accommodative facility, accommodative response, vergence facility and near and distance horizontal phoria, and so on.10) Recently, multifocal contact lens has been applied for many occasions, especially to release the binocular problems and vergence disorder. In addition, there has been various studies performed to evaluate the effect of multifocal contact lens on accommodation and vergence disorder, yet the conclusions were mixed.11-15 Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate the effect of undercorrection using multifocal soft contact lens and +1.00 D spectacle lens on binocular visual functions in non-presbyopic population.

    Ⅱ. Methods

    1. Participants

    Seventeen individuals (male = 10, female = 7, mean age of 23.58±2.12 years) who have VA of more than 0.00 logMAR without any vision correction were recruited. Their spherical equivalent for right eye was –0.35±0.45 D (range of +0.25 D~-0.50 D), and for left eye was – 0.31±0.56 D (range of +0.50 D~-0.75 D). Since there is no correction for the astigmatism in multifocal contact lenses, all the recruited participants have less than –0.75 D astigmatism to minimize the effect of uncorrected astigmatism. Thus, spherical equivalent was used and uncorrected spherical equivalent amount is within –0.50 D. All participants were screened for their suitability to participate in the study by clinical examination and informed consent was obtained. Inclusion criteria were (1) being able to wear contact lenses, (2) no ocular pathology such as cataract, glaucoma or age-related maculopathy which might influence visual function, (3) best sphere refractive error within the range of ±1.00 D with less than –0.75 D of astigmatism, (4) aided binocular VA better than 6/6 (0.0 logMAR), (5) having normal binocular visual function. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, and the research protocol was approved by the Daegu Catholic University, Institutional Review Board (CU-IRB 2017-0060).

    2. Vision Correction

    In this study, repeated measures were performed using three different correction options; No correction (NC), undercorrection using +1.00 D lenses (UL), correction using multifocal contact lenses (CM). The reason for choosing +1.00 D for undercorrection was that it may have least effect on vision and can be used to decrease the symptoms of binocular vision for non-presbyopic subject. Trial frame with +1.00 D lenses were fitted for UL condition. The multifocal contact lens used for the study was a daily disposable (simultaneous design, centrenear) with plano power for distance and addition up to +1.00 D for near which is the spherical equivalent of the near spectacle prescription. The reason for choosing this design was that it is the most commonly used multifocal contact lens in current market and +1.00 D in the center of the lens was to match with undercorrection using +1.00 D lenses.

    3. Binocular visual function measurements

    The battery of binocular visual function measures includes amplitude of accommodation, accommodative response, accommodative facility, amplitude of divergence, convergence facility and near/distance phoria. Amplitude of accommodation was measured using OPTO ruler which has sliding target. The subject was asked to response until a target is sustained blur. The minimum distance to see clear is converted into diopter. Accommodative responses were measured at 40 cm distance target, giving accommodative stimulus of +2.50 D. Auto refractor (Shin-Nippon NVision-K 5001, Rexxam Co. Ltd., Osaka, Japan) was used and the difference between looking far and near target at 40 cm was calculated for accommodative response. Accommodative facility was measured using +2.00 D/-2.00 D flippers to assess the dynamics of accommodative system. The number of flips to see letter clearly was counted in cycles per minute (cpm). For amplitude of divergence, maximum divergence was measured using a phoropter while target is divided to up and down. For convergence facility, 12 Base-out prisms / 3 Base-in prisms flipper was used to measure its function. Lastly, Howell chart for distance and near phoria, maddox rod for near phoria, were used to measure phoria.

    4. Statistical analysis

    The normality of the collected data distributions was confirmed. The visual performance measures were analysed using repeated measures ANOVAs with correction type (FC, UL and CM) as the within-subjects variable. Where Mauchly’s test was significant, and sphericity could not be assumed, the Greenhouse Geisser correction was used. Also post-hoc multiple comparisons (Tukey or Tamhane T2 tests) could be used for assessment of significant differences across visual conditions. For gender difference, paired-t test was performed for all measurement, and there was no significant difference (p>0.050), therefore data of male and female was combined together for statistical analysis.

    Ⅲ. Results

    1. Amplitude of accommodation

    Types of vision correction had no significant effect on amplitude of accommodation (F(2, 32)= 0.56, p=0.570) (Table 1, Fig. 1).

    2. Accommodative response

    There was a statistically significant difference in accommodative response with near target located at 40 cm (F(1.53, 50.46)=39.39, p<0.050). Multiple comparisons test indicated that acco mmodative response with no correction was statistically significantly bigger than other two correction options, induced +1.70 D with a target located at 40 cm (+2.50 D accommodative stimulus). In addition, CM also induced statistically significant accommodative response compared to UL (Table 2, Fig. 2).

    3. Accommodative facility

    There was a statistically significant difference in accommodative facility measured with +2.00 D/-2.00 D flipper at near target located at 40 cm (F(2, 32)=6.235, p<0.050). Multiple comparisons test indicated that accommodative facility with no correction and CM were statistically significantly better than accommodative facility of UL (Table 3, Fig. 3).

    4. Amplitude of divergence

    There was no statistically significant difference found among the three groups (F(2, 32)=0.83, p=0.446) (Table 4, Fig. 4).

    5. Vergence facility (convergence facility)

    There was a statistically significant difference in vergence facility measured with 12 Base-out prims / 3 Base-in prims flipper at near target located at 40 cm (F(2, 32)=6.96, p<0.050). Multiple comparisons test indicated that convergence facility with UL and CM were statistically significantly better than NC. However, there was no difference found between the group of UL and CM (Table 5, Fig. 5).

    6. Distance phoria

    Distance phoria was measured using Howell chart at 3m. Type of vision correction had no significant effect on distance phoria (F(2, 32)=1.03, p=0.369) (Table 6, Fig. 6).

    7. Near phoria

    Two different tests, howell chart and maddox rod, were performed to measure near phoria. There was a statistically significant difference in near phoria measured with Howell chart ((F(2, 33)=9.07, p=0.001). Multiple comparisons test indicated that Howell chart with UL and CM were statistically significant than NC (p=0.004 for UL and p=0.039 for CM). However, there was no difference found between the group of UL and CM (p=0.909) (Table 7, Fig. 7).

    There was a statistically significant difference in near phoria measured with Maddox rod ((F(2, 33)=24.81, p=0.001). Multiple comparisons test indicated that near phoria measured with Maddox rod with UL was statistically bigger than NC. However, there was no difference found between the group of UL and CM (p=0.078) (Table 8, Fig. 8).

    Ⅳ. Discussion

    Accommodative amplitude did not present any statistically significant difference among three correction options. In Gong et al.’s study, the results fell into the normal range, yet binocular amplitude of accommodation was greater in subjects with multifocal contact lens.15) However, there was no significant difference between multifocal contact lens wearers and single vision lenses wearers.

    Accommodative response with no correction presented statistically significant difference than other two groups. Multifocal contact lens presented higher accommodative response than undercorrected with +1.00 D lenses. Accommodative response means the combination of correcting lens and eyes,16) which means when the contribution of any lens worn is constant, any increase in response represents an actual ocular accommodation. Therefore, any increase in response represents true ocular accommodation and positive addition in spectacles or center-near multifocal lens relaxes accommodation, thus undercorrected with +1.00 D presented the lowest accommodative response. In accommodative facility, multifocal contact lens group did not show any statistical significance. Especially with young subjects, our result matches with other study that simultaneous image multifocal do not alter accommodative functions.16) For vergence facility, this study found both undercorrected with +1.00 D and multifocal contact lens group present the easiness of the test than the no correction group, which means plus addition may help with the patients with symptoms of vergence disorder.

    For distance phoria, there was no significant difference among the three groups. However, near phoria with full correction presented statistically significantly lower result than other two correction options. For near phoria, two different tests (howell chart and maddox rod) were performed and the results agreed that undercorrection with +1.00 D lens and multifocal contact lens produced exophoric shift, more in undercorrection with +1.00 D group. This result agreed with previous study.14-15) When viewing through multifocal lenses accommodative response was reduced, eyes are more exophoric15) and it is supported by the theory that increased depth of focus provided by the multifocal design to relax the accommodation.17)

    Overall, multifocal contact lens and undercorrection with +1.00 D lens were effective in relieve accommodative burdens and vergence problems comparing to no correction group. The existence of +1.00 D would relax the accommodation of the lens wearers, which will help to decrease the symptoms of prolonged near work. In addition, if the wearers present the near esophoria, this study would prove that it is helpful to shift the esophoria to divergent direction and symptoms of esophoria would be decreased while using this multifocal contact lens. However, this study has limited study sample and in the future study we consider the larger sample size to support our findings in this study.

    Ⅴ. Conclusion

    This study demonstrated that the performance of aspheric, center near design multifocal contact lens and undercorrection with +1.00 D lens related to the binocular visual functions, such as accommodation and vergence, and suggest that the multifocal contact lens do not provide important changes in accommodative system yet provide better accommodative stimulus-response and vergence system. The subjects with multifocal contact lens exhibited decreased accommodative response and more exophoric shift. Our findings of reduced accommodative stimulus-response and greater exophoria at near are consistent with using the positive addition at near. Thus, simultaneous image multifocal contact lenses may be useful for myopic children and young adults who presented accommodative problems (i.e. accommodative insufficiency) or vergence disorder.

    Figure

    KJVS-23-2-195_F1.gif

    Amplitude of Accommodation (D).

    KJVS-23-2-195_F2.gif

    Accommodative response regards to a target located at 40cm away, which is equal to +2.50 D accommodative stimulus.

    KJVS-23-2-195_F3.gif

    Accommodative facility measure using +2.00 D/-2.00 D flipper.

    KJVS-23-2-195_F4.gif

    Amplitude of divergence (prism diopter).

    KJVS-23-2-195_F5.gif

    Convergence facility.

    KJVS-23-2-195_F6.gif

    Distance phoria measure (positive number indicates eso deviation and negative number indicates exo deviation).

    KJVS-23-2-195_F7.gif

    Near phoria measure with Howell chart (positive number indicates eso deviation and negative number indicates exo deviation).

    KJVS-23-2-195_F8.gif

    Near phoria measure with Maddox rod (positive number indicates eso deviation and negative number indicates exo deviation).

    Table

    Average amplitude of accommodation and standard deviation (unit: diopter)

    Average accommodative response and standard deviation (unit: diopter)

    Average accommodative facility and standard deviation (unit: diopter)

    Average accommodative divergence and standard deviation (unit: diopter)

    Average convergence facility and standard deviation (unit: diopter)

    Average distance phoria and standard deviation using Howell chart (unit: diopter)

    Average near phoria and standard deviation using Howell chart (unit: diopter)

    Average near phoria and standard deviation using Maddox rod (unit: diopter)

    Reference

    1. Rosenfield M: Computer vision syndrome: A review of ocular causes and potential treatments. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 31(5), 502-515, 2011.
    2. Scheiman M, Wick B: Clinical management of binocular vision: Heterophoric, accommodative and eye movement disorders, 3rd ed., Philadelphia, Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp. 77, 2008.
    3. Martínez PC, Muñoz ÁG et al.: Treatment of accommodative and nonstrabismic binocular dysfunctions: A systematic review. Optom J Am Optometric Assoc. 80(12), 702-716, 2009.
    4. Abdi S, Rydberg A: Asthenopia in schoolchildren, orthoptic and ophthalmological findings and treatment. Doc Ophthalmol. 111(2), 65-72, 2005.
    5. García-Muñoz Á, Carbonell-Bonete S et al.: Symptomatology associated with accommodative and binocular vision anomalies. J Optom. 7(4), 178-192, 2014.
    6. Jiang BC, Tea YC et al.: Changes in accommodative and vergence responses when viewing through near addition lenses. Optometry 78(3), 129-134, 2007.
    7. Adler D, Millodot M: The possible effect of undercorrection on myopic porgression in children. Clin Exp Optom. 89(5), 315-321, 2006.
    8. Rosenfield M, Gilmartin M: Myopia and near work, 1st ed., Boston, Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 91-116, 1998.
    9. Cheng D, Schmid KL et al.: The effect of positive-lens addition and base-in prism on accommodation accuracy and near horizontal phoria in Chinese myopic children. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 28(3), 225-237, 2008.
    10. Jiménez R, Martínez-Almeida L et al.: Contact lenses vs spectacles in myopes: Is there any difference in accommodative and binocular function? Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 249(6), 925-935, 2011.
    11. Madrid-Costa D, García-Lázaro S et al.: Visual performance of two simultaneous vision multifocal contact lenses. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 33(1), 51-56, 2013.
    12. Tarrant J, Severson H et al.: Accommodation in emmetropic and myopic young adults wearing bifocal soft contact lenses. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 28(1), 62-72, 2008.
    13. Antice NS, Phillips JR: Effect of dual-focus soft contact lens wear on axial myopia progression in children. Ophthalmology 118(6), 1152-1161, 2011.
    14. Kang P, Wildsoet CF: Acute and short-term changes in visual function with multifocal soft contact lens wear in young adults. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 39(2), 133-140, 2016.
    15. Gong CR, Troilo D et al.: Accommodation and phoria in children wearing multifocal contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 94(3), 353-360, 2017.
    16. Montés-Micó R, Madrid-Costa D et al.: Accommodative functions with multifocal contact lenses: A pilot study. Optom Vis Sci. 88(8), 998-1004, 2011.
    17. Aller TA, Liu M et al.: Myopia control with bifocal contact lenses: A randomized clinical trial. Optom Vis Sci. 93(4), 344-352, 2016.