Search

Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of pencil push-up therapy (PPT) versus office-based vision therapy in patients with convergence insufficiency. Materials and Methods: In this study, 60 students from Zahedan University of Medical Sciences with convergence insufficiency were selected. After determining their refractive error (with a retinoscope), near point of convergence (by millimeter ruler), near heterophoria (by alternate prism cover test), and positive fusional vergence at near (by prism bar), subjects were divided into two groups to receive PPT (at least three times a day for 5 minutes each time) or office-based therapy (two times each week for 60 minutes each visit) without home reinforcement. Subjects were re-examined 4 and 8 weeks after initiation of treatment. Statistical analysis was performed with the independent samples t-test and the analysis of variance (ANOVA). Statistical significance was indicated by P < 0.05. Results: The near point of convergence, phoria, and positive fusional vergence were not statistically different between the two groups before treatment (P > 0.05). After 4 and 8 weeks of therapy, only the positive fusional vergence was statistically significantly different between groups (P = 0.001). Results from ANOVA indicated a considerable difference between the two groups in general but the observed difference was related only to positive fusional vergence. Conclusion: PPT and office-based vision therapy are comparable for treatment of convergence insufficiency. While we do not deny the more efficacious nature of office-based therapy, it is not always practical, may be too expensive, and may not be locally available. A home-based therapy offers a cost-effective reasonable alternative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To compare the accommodative amplitude (AA), facility (AF), and lag between dominant and non-dominant eyes. Methods: Seventy students [mean (SD) age: 21.2 (1.7) years, range 18-25] from Zahedan University of Medical Sciences were selected. Retinoscopy and subjective refraction was used to determine the refractive error. The hole-in-the card method was used to determine eye dominance. The accommodative amplitude (AA) was measured in the dominant and non-dominant eye using the push-up method, and accommodative facility (AF) using ±2.00 dioptre flipper lenses at 40 cm. Accommodative lag was determined using monocular estimate method (MEM) retinoscopy at 40 cm. Results: The right eye was dominant in 53 subjects (75.7 %). There was no significant difference in refractive error (sphere, cylinder, and spherical equivalent) between dominant and non-dominant eyes. The mean (SD) for the AA, AF, and lag in dominant eyes was 12.48 (2.56) dioptres, 12.45 (4.83) cycles per minute, and 0.80 (0.27) dioptres respectively. The mean (SD) for the AA, AF, and lag in non-dominant eyes was 12.16 (2.37) dioptres, 12.20 (4.88) cycles per minute, and 0.83 (0.28) dioptres respectively. The mean (SD) difference in AA, AF, and lag between dominant and non dominant eyes was 0.32 (0.75) dioptres ( P = 0.001), 0.25 (1.05) cycles per minute ( P = 0.04), and −0.02 (0.11) dioptres ( P = 0.10) respectively. The AA and AF was statistically better ( P < 0.05) in the dominant eye group than in the non-dominant eye group. These data provided little evidence of any difference in the accommodative lag between dominant and non-dominant eyes ( P > 0.05). Conclusion: The right eye was dominant in 76 % of subjects. Superior AA and AF was found in the dominant eye as determined by hole-in-the card method in young healthy adults, although these differences are perhaps not of clinical significance (<0.50 dioptres and <2 cycles per minute). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The aim was to investigate the effect on the measured amplitude of accommodation and repeatability of using the minus lens technique with the target at distance or near. Methods Forty-three students (average age: 21.17 ± 1.50 years, 35 female) had their amplitude of accommodation measured with minus lenses on top of their distance correction in a trial frame with the target at far (6.0 m) or near (0.4 m). The minus lens power was gradually added with steps of 0.25 D. Measurements were taken on two occasions at each distance, which were separated by a time interval of at least 24 hours. Results The measured amplitude at six metres was significantly lower than that with the target at 40 cm, by 1.56 ± 1.17 D (p < 0.001) and this varied between individuals (r = 0.716, intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.439). With either target distance, repeated measurement was highly correlated (r > 0.9) but the agreement was better at 6.0 m (±0.74 D) than at 40 cm (± 0.92 D). Conclusion The measurements of the amplitude of accommodation with the minus lens technique using targets at far or near are not comparable and the difference between the target distances may provide clinically relevant information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]