Effects of Progressive Addition Lens Wear on Digital Work in Pre-presbyopes

Chea-Su Kee, Tsz Wing Leung, Ka-Hung Kan, Christie Hang-I Lam, Chea-Su Kee, Tsz Wing Leung, Ka-Hung Kan, Christie Hang-I Lam

Abstract

Significance: Growing popularity of handheld digital devices imposes significant challenges to our visual system and clinical management. This study aimed to determine the effects of lens design on parameters that may influence the refractive management of pre-presbyopic adult computer users.

Purpose: To determine the effects of wearing conventional single-vision lenses (SVL) versus progressive addition lenses (PAL) on the working distance and refractive status.

Methods: Adult computer users, recruited from two age cohorts (18 to 25 years, n = 19; 30 to 40 years, n = 45), were prescribed SVLs and PALs designed for use with handheld digital devices. For each lens type, the working distance and refractive shift (post-task - pre-task) were measured immediately after lens delivery (T0) and after 1 month of lens wear (T1). Working distances were recorded with an automatic ultrasound device while the participants were playing a video game. Refractive status through the subjects' glasses was measured before (pre-task) and after playing the game (post-task). Questionnaires assessing the frequencies of 10 digital work-related visual symptoms were conducted for both lens types at T1.

Results: Switching from SVL to PAL increased the working distance in both cohorts (mean ± SEM = 1.88 ± 0.60 cm; P = .002) and induced a small but significant positive refractive shift (+0.08 ± 0.04 D, P = .021) in the older cohort at T1. In the younger cohort, the changes in working distance due to the switching lens design were correlated with myopic error (r = +0.66, P = .002). In the older cohort, the changes in refractive shift due to switching lens design were correlated with amplitude of accommodation at both time points (r for T0 and T1 = -0.32 and -0.30, respectively; both P < .05). Progressive addition lens was rated as causing less "increased sensitivity to light" compared with SVL.

Conclusions: Switching from SVL to PAL increased the working distance and induced a positive refractive shift in the majority of pre-presbyopic adults.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02775396.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: None of the authors have reported a financial conflict of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
CONSORT flowchart. Participants visited the optometry clinic five times. Baseline data were collected at visit 1. In visits 2 and 4, either conventional single-vision lens or progressive addition lens was delivered to participants in random sequence, and measurements were taken. In visits 3 and 5, the same set of measurements was performed.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Effects of switching lens design on working distance. Histogram (bottom) and box plots (top) for the changes in working distance due to switching lens design (PAL-SVL) in younger (left) and older participants (right) at both time points (see legend). Lines within the boxes were medians, and the round symbols represent outliers beyond the 5th/95th percentile. The magnitude of increased working distance due to switching the lens design was significantly different from 0 at T0 for the older cohort (one-sample t test, P = .013). PAL = progressive addition lens; SVL = single-vision lens.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Effects of switching lens design on the percentage of time spent at modal working distance. Histogram (bottom) and box plots (top) of the changes in percentage of modal working distance after switching lens design (PAL-SVL) in younger (left) and older participants (right) at both time points (see legend). Lines within the boxes were medians, and the round symbols represent outliers beyond 5th/95th percentile. The reductions in percentage of time spent at modal working distance due to switching lens design were significantly different from 0 at T0 for both cohorts (one-sample t tests, P ≤ .037). PAL = progressive addition lens; SVL = single-vision lens.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Effects of wearing the conventional SVL on refractive status. Histogram (bottom) and box plots (top) of the changes in refractive status (post-task − pre-task) for younger (white) and older (gray) cohorts after playing 30 minutes of video game with SVL. SVL = single-vision lens.
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
Effects of switching lens design on the refractive shift after playing interactive video game. Histogram (bottom) and box plots (top) of the changes in refractive shift after switching lens design (PAL-SVL) in younger (left) and older participants (right) at both time points (see legend). Lines within the boxes were medians, and the round symbols represent outliers beyond 5th/95th percentile. The positive refractive shift due to switching the lens design was significantly different from zero at T1 in the older cohort (one-sample t tests, P = .021). PAL = progressive addition lens; SVL = single-vision lens.
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 6
Correlations of baseline parameters with the changes in outcome measures due to switching the lens design in younger (left) and older participants (right). Only significant correlations showing the highest Pearson r in each group are plotted here. Refer to Table 2 for details. Linear regression lines are inserted in each plot.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/5943073/bin/opx-95-457-g001.jpg

References

    1. Rosenfield M. Computer Vision Syndrome: A Review of Ocular Causes and Potential Treatments. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2011;31:502–15.
    1. Blehm C, Vishnu S, Khattak A, et al. Computer Vision Syndrome: A Review. Surv Ophthalmol 2005;50:253–62.
    1. Thomson WD. Eye Problems and Visual Display Terminals—the Facts and the Fallacies. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1998;18:111–9.
    1. Benedetto S, Drai-Zerbib V, Pedrotti M, et al. E-readers and Visual Fatigue. PLoS One 2013;8:e83676.
    1. Bababekova Y, Rosenfield M, Hue JE, et al. Font Size and Viewing Distance of Handheld Smart Phones. Optom Vis Sci 2011;88:795–7.
    1. Mutti DO, Zadnik K. Is Computer Use a Risk Factor for Myopia? J Am Optom Assoc 1996;67:521–30.
    1. Yeow PT, Taylor SP. Effects of Short-term VDT Usage on Visual Functions. Optom Vis Sci 1989;66:459–66.
    1. Gratton I, Piccoli B, Zaniboni A, et al. Change in Visual Function and Viewing Distance during Work with VDTS. Ergonomics 1990;33:1433–41.
    1. Piccoli B, Braga M, Zambelli PL, et al. Viewing Distance Variation and Related Ophthalmological Changes in Office Activities with and without VDUS. Ergonomics 1996;39:719–28.
    1. Ciuffreda KJ, Vasudevan B. Nearwork-induced Transient Myopia (NITM) and Permanent Myopia—Is There a Link? Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2008;28:103–14.
    1. Shaikh AW, Siegwart JT, Jr., Norton TT. Effect of Interrupted Lens Wear on Compensation for a Minus Lens in Tree Shrews. Optom Vis Sci 1999;76:308–15.
    1. Winawer J, Wallman J. Temporal Constraints on Lens Compensation in Chicks. Vision Res 2002;42:2651–68.
    1. Kee CS, Hung LF, Qiao-Grider Y, et al. Temporal Constraints on Experimental Emmetropization in Infant Monkeys. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007;48:957–62.
    1. Leung TW, Lam AK, Deng L, et al. Characteristics of Astigmatism as a Function of Age in a Hong Kong Clinical Population. Optom Vis Sci 2012;89:984–92.
    1. Grosvenor T. Primary Care Optometry 5th ed Philadelphia: Butterworth Heinemann Elsevier; 2007.
    1. Leung TW, Flitcroft DI, Wallman J, et al. A Novel Instrument for Logging Nearwork Distance. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2011;31:137–44.
    1. Mallen EA, Wolffsohn JS, Gilmartin B, et al. Clinical Evaluation of the Shin-Nippon SRW-5000 Autorefractor in Adults. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2001;21:101–7.
    1. Kimura S, Hasebe S, Ohtsuki H. Systematic Measurement Errors Involved in Over-refraction Using an Autorefractor (Grand-Seiko WV-500): Is Measurement of Accommodative Lag through Spectacle Lenses Valid? Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2007;27:281–6.
    1. Armstrong RA. When to Use the Bonferroni Correction. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2014;34:502–8.
    1. Mathur A, Atchison DA. Peripheral Refraction Patterns out to Large Field Angles. Optom Vis Sci 2013;90:140–7.
    1. Atchison DA. The Glenn A. Fry Award Lecture 2011: Peripheral Optics of the Human Eye. Optom Vis Sci 2012;89:E954–66.
    1. Flitcroft DI. The Complex Interactions of Retinal, Optical and Environmental Factors in Myopia Aetiology. Prog Retin Eye Res 2012;31:622–60.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi