Brautaset Rune, Wahlberg Marika, Abdi Saber, Pansell Tony
Unit of Optometry, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Strabismus. 2008 Apr-Jun;16(2):65-9. doi: 10.1080/09273970802039763.
The aim of the present study was to investigate which mode of therapy, plus lens (+1.00D) reading addition (PLRA) or spherical flipper (+/- 1.50D), is the most effective in the treatment of accommodative insufficiency (AI).
Initially, 24 subjects (mean age 10.3 years, +/- 2.5 SD) with AI were included in the study. Ten subjects completed 8 weeks of PRLA treatment whereas 9, out of 14, subjects completed 8 weeks of spherical flipper treatment.
There was a statistically significant improvement in the accommodative amplitude with both regimes of treatment [F(1, 17) = 18.84, p = 0.0004). Spherical flipper treatment was found to have an overall larger effect on accommodative function as compared with PLRA treatment. However, accommodation did not reach normal values after only 8 weeks of treatment.
The results indicate that both methods improve the accommodative amplitude, but that overall accommodative function reaches higher levels of improvement with spherical flipper as compared with PLRA treatment. However, the accommodative function did not gain normal values in 8 weeks of treatment with either regime.
本研究旨在探究哪种治疗方式，即正透镜（+1.00D）阅读附加镜（PLRA）或球镜翻转拍（+/- 1.50D），在治疗调节不足（AI）方面最为有效。
最初，24名患有AI的受试者（平均年龄10.3岁，标准差±2.5）被纳入研究。10名受试者完成了8周的PLRA治疗，而14名受试者中的9名完成了8周的球镜翻转拍治疗。
两种治疗方案在调节幅度上均有统计学意义的改善[F(1, 17) = 18.84，p = 0.0004]。与PLRA治疗相比，发现球镜翻转拍治疗对调节功能的总体影响更大。然而，仅经过8周治疗后，调节功能并未达到正常值。
结果表明，两种方法均能改善调节幅度，但与PLRA治疗相比，球镜翻转拍治疗使总体调节功能达到更高的改善水平。然而，两种治疗方案在8周治疗后调节功能均未恢复到正常值。
Zotero 插件