Askarizadeh Farshad, Heirani Mohsen, Khorrami-Nejad Masoud, Khabazkhoob Mehdi, Narooie-Noori Foroozan
Department of Optometry, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Translational Ophthalmology Research Center, Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Optom Vis Sci. 2022 Jan 1;99(1):51-57. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001825.
The effect of vergence adaptation on test sequences should be considered in clinical practice.
This study aimed to compare the effect of vergence adaptation after different vergence facility (VF) testing methods on following horizontal fusional reserve measurement at near.
This cross-sectional study was performed on 50 healthy subjects with a mean ± standard deviation age of 21.18 ± 1.41 years. The baseline horizontal fusional reserves were measured using base-in (BI) and base-out (BO) prisms (∆) at near. Then, VF was measured using 3∆BI/12∆BI flip prism at near, and then the measurement of fusional reserves was repeated. In the next step, fusional reserves were measured after VF testing using 8∆BI/8∆BO flip prism. The values of fusional reserves were compared with their baseline findings.
The results of negative fusional reserves after VF measurement using the 3∆BI/12∆BO prisms were significantly lower than the baseline values (blur [P = .03], break [P = .03], and recovery [P = .03]). There were no significant differences between the values of fusional reserves before and after VF testing using the 8∆BI/8∆BO prisms (P > .05). No correlation was observed between fusional reserves and VF responses (P > .05); however, the results revealed a positive correlation between the values of fusional reserves before and after VF testing using both methods (all P < .05). There was no significant difference in VF findings between the methods (P = .23).
The measurements of horizontal fusional reserves followed by VF testing were not affected except for the responses of negative fusional reserves, which decreased after VF determination using the 3∆BI/12∆BO method. Although the vergence adaptation does not seem clinically significant, it is recommended to evaluate horizontal fusional reserves before VF measurement or long-enough time after VF testing for the vergence system to return to its nonadapted state.
在临床实践中应考虑聚散适应对测试序列的影响。
本研究旨在比较不同聚散灵活度(VF)测试方法后的聚散适应对随后近距水平融合储备测量的影响。
本横断面研究对50名健康受试者进行,其平均年龄±标准差为21.18±1.41岁。使用近距内聚(BI)和外聚(BO)棱镜(△)测量基线水平融合储备。然后,使用3△BI/12△BI翻转棱镜在近距测量VF,之后重复融合储备测量。下一步,在使用8△BI/8△BO翻转棱镜进行VF测试后测量融合储备。将融合储备值与其基线结果进行比较。
使用3△BI/12△BO棱镜进行VF测量后,负融合储备结果显著低于基线值(模糊[P = 0.03]、破裂[P = 0.03]和恢复[P = 0.03])。使用8△BI/8△BO棱镜进行VF测试前后,融合储备值之间无显著差异(P > 0.05)。未观察到融合储备与VF反应之间的相关性(P > 0.05);然而,结果显示两种方法在VF测试前后融合储备值之间呈正相关(所有P < 0.05)。两种方法的VF结果无显著差异(P = 0.23)。
除了负融合储备反应外,VF测试后的水平融合储备测量不受影响,使用3△BI/12△BO方法进行VF测定后,负融合储备反应降低。尽管聚散适应在临床上似乎无显著意义,但建议在VF测量前或VF测试后足够长的时间评估水平融合储备,以使聚散系统恢复到未适应状态。