Horgen Gunnar, Aarås Arne, Thoresen Magne
Department of Optometry and Visual Science, Buskerud University College, Kongsberg, Norway.
Optom Vis Sci. 2004 May;81(5):341-9. doi: 10.1097/01.opx.0000134908.44145.49.
Three types of progressive additions lenses (PAL) specially designed for VDU-work and one single vision lens were compared in a prospective field study. The aim was to investigate if these progressive lenses created a difference in the development of visual discomfort compared to single vision lenses when working on an optimized VDU-workstation.
The study had a prospective, parallel group design, with four groups of VDU-workers. Approximately 40 subjects in each group, selected after careful task analysis with special attention towards the visual angles and distances to the work tasks. The groups were followed over one year. A questionnaire concerning visual conditions, working conditions, discomfort in different body areas, the status of the subjects' optometric corrections, psychological factors both at work and at home, amount, frequency and duration of VDU-work etc. was filled in before the intervention, after six months and after one year. No other contact was made with the subjects. The VDU-lenses included were Interview (Essilor), Gradal RD (Zeiss) and Technica (American Optical). Pain intensity and duration were assessed on a 100 mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) before the intervention, and six and twelve months after the intervention. All subjects were given a complete optometric examination.
Only small changes in the development of headache and visual discomfort were registered. However, the subjective evaluation of area of clear vision and overall satisfaction was significantly improved for the Interview and Gradal RD lens (p < 0.05). There were no significant changes for Technica and single vision lenses.
Lens designs that cover viewing distances from near and out to approximately 2 meters work well compared to lens designs trying to cover greater range of clear vision. When tasks analysis shows that single vision correction may be used, this is still an acceptable solution.
在一项前瞻性现场研究中,对专门为视屏显示终端(VDU)工作设计的三种渐进多焦点镜片(PAL)和一种单焦点镜片进行比较。目的是调查在优化的VDU工作站上工作时,与单焦点镜片相比,这些渐进多焦点镜片在视觉不适发展方面是否存在差异。
该研究采用前瞻性平行组设计,有四组VDU工作者。经过仔细的任务分析,每组约40名受试者,特别关注工作任务的视角和距离。对这些组进行了为期一年的跟踪。在干预前、六个月后和一年后,填写一份关于视觉状况、工作条件、身体不同部位的不适、受试者验光矫正情况、工作和家中的心理因素、VDU工作的量、频率和持续时间等的问卷。未与受试者进行其他接触。所包括的VDU镜片有Interview(依视路)、Gradal RD(蔡司)和Technica(美国光学)。在干预前、干预后六个月和十二个月,使用100毫米视觉模拟量表(VAS)评估疼痛强度和持续时间。所有受试者都接受了全面的验光检查。
仅记录到头痛和视觉不适发展方面的微小变化。然而,Interview和Gradal RD镜片在清晰视觉区域和总体满意度的主观评价上有显著改善(p < 0.05)。Technica镜片和单焦点镜片没有显著变化。
与试图覆盖更大清晰视觉范围的镜片设计相比,覆盖从近到约2米视距的镜片设计效果良好。当任务分析表明可以使用单焦点矫正时,这仍然是一个可接受的解决方案。