a Department of Optometry, School of Allied Health Sciences , University of Cape Coast , Cape Coast , Ghana.
b Department of Vision and Hearing Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology , Anglia Ruskin University , Cambridge , United Kingdom.
Curr Eye Res. 2018 Sep;43(9):1145-1150. doi: 10.1080/02713683.2018.1480044. Epub 2018 Jun 4.
Amplitude of accommodation (AoA) can be determined clinically using different methods. Some methods are known to be more reliable than others for measuring AoA in different age categories. The purpose of this study was to compare Hofstetter's age-expected norms with five recommended methods of measuring AoA in order to determine age-appropriate techniques for a Ghanaian population.
AoA was measured using four subjective methods (push-up, push-down, minus lens, and modified push-up) and one objective method, the modified dynamic retinoscopy. The amplitudes obtained by each technique were compared to each other and also compared to the age-expected amplitudes as predicted by Hofstetter's equations.
352 non-presbyopes aged 10-39 years were included in this study. All five methods except the push-up (p = 0.089) and modified push-up (p = 0.081) differed significantly from Hofstetter's data, while the modified dynamic retinoscopy recorded the strongest agreement with Hofstetter's average (ICC = 0.78, p ˂ 0.001). With reference to Hofstetter's expected AoA, the minus lens, push-down, modified dynamic retinoscopy, and modified push-up methods underestimated AoA by -4.18D, -1.99D, -0.48D, and -0.43D, respectively. As age increased, underestimated AoA values by the minus lens (10-19 years: -5.57D, 20-29 years: -3.50D, 30-39 years: -2.39D), modified push-up (10-19 years: -1.51D, 20-29 years: +0.40D, 30-39 years: +0.56D), and push-down (10-19 years: -2.90D, 20-29 years: -1.07D, 30-39 years: -1.46D) methods decreased but the modified push-up in relation to Hofstetter's expected was most accurate for the older age. The push-up, on the other hand, overestimated accommodation in all age categories by +0.42D (10-19 years: +0.01D, 20-29 years: +0.82D, 30-39 years: 0.67D). Thus, the push-up method became more accurate as age decreased.
This study suggested that Hofstetter's formulae could be used to predict the amplitudes of Ghanaian non-presbyopes aged 10-39 years using the push-up and modified push-up. With regard to Hofstetter's data, the push-up method was more accurate for the younger age-group 10-19 years while the modified push-up was more accurate for the older age-group 20-39.
调节幅度(AoA)可通过不同的方法在临床上进行测定。一些方法在测量不同年龄段的 AoA 时比其他方法更可靠。本研究的目的是比较 Hofstetter 的年龄预期正常值与五种推荐的 AoA 测量方法,以确定适用于加纳人群的方法。
使用四种主观方法(推顶、推底、负镜片和改良推顶)和一种客观方法,即改良动态视网膜检影术来测量 AoA。比较了每种技术获得的幅度彼此之间的差异,以及与 Hofstetter 方程预测的年龄预期幅度的差异。
本研究纳入了 352 名年龄在 10-39 岁的非远视者。除推顶(p=0.089)和改良推顶(p=0.081)外,所有五种方法均与 Hofstetter 的数据存在显著差异,而改良动态视网膜检影术与 Hofstetter 的平均值具有最强的一致性(ICC=0.78,p<0.001)。与 Hofstetter 的预期 AoA 相比,负镜片、推底、改良动态视网膜检影术和改良推顶方法分别低估了 AoA 为-4.18D、-1.99D、-0.48D 和-0.43D。随着年龄的增长,负镜片(10-19 岁:-5.57D,20-29 岁:-3.50D,30-39 岁:-2.39D)、改良推顶(10-19 岁:-1.51D,20-29 岁:+0.40D,30-39 岁:+0.56D)和推底(10-19 岁:-2.90D,20-29 岁:-1.07D,30-39 岁:-1.46D)方法的低估幅度逐渐减小,但改良推顶在年龄较大时与 Hofstetter 的预期最为准确。另一方面,推顶在所有年龄组中都高估了调节幅度,分别为+0.42D(10-19 岁:+0.01D,20-29 岁:+0.82D,30-39 岁:0.67D)。因此,推顶方法随着年龄的降低而变得更加准确。
本研究表明,Hofstetter 公式可用于预测 10-39 岁加纳非远视者的调节幅度,使用推顶和改良推顶。就 Hofstetter 的数据而言,推顶法在 10-19 岁的年轻年龄段更为准确,而改良推顶在 20-39 岁的年龄段更为准确。