Prevalence of Accommodative Microfluctuations in Eyes after Cataract Surgery
<p>High-frequency component values for various accommodative stimuli in patients after cataract surgery. (<b>A</b>) HFC values for accommodative stimuli at 2 M. There were significant differences between 0 D and −2 D (<span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.001), 0 D and −3D (<span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.001), and −1 D and −3 D (<span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.001). (<b>B</b>) HFC values for accommodative stimuli at 6M. There were significant differences between 0 D and −2 D (<span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.001), 0 D and −3 D (<span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.001), −1 D and −2 D (<span class="html-italic">p</span> = 0.032), and −1D and −3 D (<span class="html-italic">p</span> = 0.0031). Abbreviations: D, diopters; HFC, high-frequency component; M, months. ×, outliers; *, <span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.05.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Relationship of high-frequency component values with patient age and manifest refraction after cataract surgery. Relationship between HFC values and patient age at 2 M (<b>A</b>) and 6 M (<b>B</b>). HFC values based on the patient age are plotted (○) (<b>A</b>,<b>B</b>). HFC values based on the manifest refraction are plotted (○) (<b>C</b>,<b>D</b>). There was no significant difference in HFC values according to age at either time point (A: r = −0.022, <span class="html-italic">p</span> = 0.462, B: r = 0.003, <span class="html-italic">p</span> = 0.912). Relationship between HFC values and manifest refraction at 2M (<b>C</b>) and 6 M (<b>D</b>). There was no significant difference in HFC values according to manifest refraction at either time point (C: r = −0.002, <span class="html-italic">p</span> = 0.940, D: r = −0.017, <span class="html-italic">p</span> = 0.569).</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Ratio of patients with increased high-frequency component values depending on the axial length of eyes after cataract surgery. (<b>A</b>) Comparison of the ratio of patients with increased HFC values at axial length <26 and ≥26 mm at 2 M. Increased HFC values were significantly more frequent in eyes with an axial length ≥ 26 mm than in those with an axial length <26 mm at 2 M (<span class="html-italic">p</span> = 0.0056). (<b>B</b>) Comparison of the ratio of patients with increased HFC values at axial length < 26 and ≥ 26 mm at 6 M. There was no significant difference between eyes with axial lengths ≥26 mm and <26 mm at 6 M. Abbreviations: n.s.: not significant. *, <span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.05.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Patients
2.2. Accommodative Microfluctuation Analysis
2.3. Cataract Surgical Procedure
2.4. Statistical Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Patient Characteristics
3.2. HFCs and Age/Manifest Refraction
3.3. Pupil Diameter
3.4. Prevalence of Increased HFC Values
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Blehm, C.; Vishnu, S.; Khattak, A.; Mitra, S.; Yee, R.W. Computer vision syndrome: A review. Surv. Ophthalmol. 2005, 50, 253–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kajita, M.; Ono, M.; Suzuki, S.; Kato, K. Accommodative microfluctuation in asthenopia caused by accommodative spasm. Fukushima J. Med. Sci. 2001, 47, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lee, S.H.; Kim, M.; Kim, H.; Park, C.Y. Visual fatigue induced by watching virtual reality device and the effect of anisometropia. Ergonomics 2021, 64, 1522–1531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Charman, W.N.; Heron, G. Fluctuations in accommodation: A review. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 1988, 8, 153–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Winn, B.; Pugh, J.R.; Gilmartin, B.; Owens, H. The frequency characteristics of accommodative microfluctuations for central and peripheral zones of the human crystalline lens. Vis. Res. 1990, 30, 1093–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Campbell, F.W.; Robson, J.G.; Westheimer, G. Fluctuations of accommodation under steady viewing conditions. J. Physiol. 1959, 145, 579–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- van der Heijde, G.L.; Beers, A.P.; Dubbelman, M. Microfluctuations of steady-state accommodation measured with ultrasonography. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 1996, 16, 216–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Collins, M.; Davis, B.; Wood, J. Microfluctuations of steady-state accommodation and the cardiopulmonary system. Vis. Res. 1995, 35, 2491–2502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Win-Hall, D.M.; Glasser, A. Objective accommodation measurements in pseudophakic subjects using an autorefractor and an aberrometer. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 2009, 35, 282–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kajita, M.; Muraoka, T.; Orsborn, G. Changes in accommodative micro-fluctuations after wearing contact lenses of different optical designs. Contact Lens Anterior Eye 2020, 43, 493–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lesiewska-Junk, H.; Kałuzny, J. Intraocular lens movement and accommodation in eyes of young patients. J. Cataract. Refract. Surg. 2000, 26, 562–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lupón, N.; Gispets, J.; Cardona, G.; Tàpia, A.; Abril, H. Role of microfluctuations in accommodation: A novel approach to reduce non-accommodative noise. Int. J. Ophthalmol. 2019, 12, 681–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Redondo, B.; Vera, J.; Luque-Casado, A.; García-Ramos, A.; Jiménez, R. Associations between accommodative dynamics, heart rate variability and behavioural performance during sustained attention: A test–retest study. Vis. Res. 2019, 163, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hanyuda, A.; Ayaki, M.; Tsubota, K.; Negishi, K. Discrepancies in persistent dry eye signs and symptoms in bilateral pseudophakic patients. J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Chen, A.H.; Ahmad, A.; Kearney, S.; Strang, N. The influence of age, refractive error, visual demand and lighting conditions on accommodative ability in Malay children and adults. Graefe’s Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2019, 257, 1997–2004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yu, H.; Zeng, J.; Li, Z.; Hu, Y.; Cui, D.; Zhao, W.; Zhao, F.; Yang, X. Variability of accommodative microfluctuations in myopic and emmetropic juveniles during sustained near work. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wagner, S.; Zrenner, E.; Strasser, T. Emmetropes and myopes differ little in their accommodation dynamics but strongly in their ciliary muscle morphology. Vis. Res. 2019, 163, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kaido, M.; Kawashima, M.; Shigeno, Y.; Yamada, Y.; Tsubota, K. Relation of accommodative microfluctuation with dry eye symptoms in short tear break-up time dry eye. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0184296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ayaki, M.; Negishi, K. Short tear breakup time could exacerbate the progression of presbyopia in women. BioMed Res. Int. 2022, 2022, 8159669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Naderi, K.; Gormley, J.; O’Brart, D. Cataract surgery and dry eye disease: A review. Eur. J. Ophthalmol. 2020, 30, 840–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
N (Eyes) | 1160 |
---|---|
Age (years) | 72.5 ± 8.3 |
Preoperative anterior chamber depth (mm) | 3.18 ± 0.41 |
Axial length (mm) | 23.99 ± 1.57 |
Preoperative best corrected distance visual acuity (logMAR) | 0.21 ± 0.27 |
Postoperative best corrected distance visual acuity (logMAR) | −0.08 ± 0.12 |
Preoperative manifest refraction (D) | −1.29 ± 3.68 |
Postoperative manifest refraction (D) | −0.11 ± 5.2 |
Preoperative corneal endothelial cell density (cells/mm2) | 2631 ± 331 |
Postoperative corneal endothelial cell density (cells/mm2) | 2594 ± 714 |
Surgical time (s) | 611.6 ± 319.0 |
Age Group (Years) | N | 2 M (Eyes) | 6 M (Eyes) |
---|---|---|---|
≤49 | 14 | 7 (50%) | 6 (43%) |
50–59 | 50 | 16 (32%) | 20 (40%) |
60–69 | 272 | 101 (37%) | 90 (33%) |
70–79 | 600 | 186 (31%) | 204 (34%) |
≥80 | 224 | 76 (34%) | 85 (38%) |
p-value | - | 0.35 | 0.54 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kaida, T.; Ono, T.; Tokunaga, T.; Takada, K.; Tokuda, S.; Kuwabara, N.; Kawamorita, T.; Kamiya, K.; Shoji, N.; Miyata, K. Prevalence of Accommodative Microfluctuations in Eyes after Cataract Surgery. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 5135. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12155135
Kaida T, Ono T, Tokunaga T, Takada K, Tokuda S, Kuwabara N, Kawamorita T, Kamiya K, Shoji N, Miyata K. Prevalence of Accommodative Microfluctuations in Eyes after Cataract Surgery. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(15):5135. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12155135
Chicago/Turabian StyleKaida, Tomoko, Takashi Ono, Tadatoshi Tokunaga, Keita Takada, Shota Tokuda, Naoto Kuwabara, Takushi Kawamorita, Kazutaka Kamiya, Nobuyuki Shoji, and Kazunori Miyata. 2023. "Prevalence of Accommodative Microfluctuations in Eyes after Cataract Surgery" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 15: 5135. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12155135