UNASSIGNED: To review the diagnostic protocols of non-strabismic binocular vision anomalies.
UNASSIGNED: We carried out a literature search on published articles of non-strabismic accommodative and vergence anomalies in different international optometry and ophthalmology journals found in the Pubmed, ResearchGate, Google Scholar, and MEDLINE databases.
UNASSIGNED: The diagnostic criteria and normative data from the nine articles selected show discrepancies and variability in methodologies and techniques in the overall assessment of Non-Strabismic Binocular Vision Anomalies (NSBVA). Near point of convergence measurement is the most common assessment, whereas the vergence facility is the least commonly used assessment in terms of evaluating convergence insufficiency. Near point of convergence > 10 cm alone is the most sensitive sign to detect convergence insufficiency in a community set-up but high positive relative accommodation (>3.50D) is the most sensitive sign to diagnose accommodative excess. On the other hand, monocular accommodative facility < 7 CPM has the highest sensitivity to confirm the diagnosis of accommodative infacility. This review also indicates that the more clinical signs that are included in a set of diagnostic criteria, the lower the prevalence rate for that diagnosis.
UNASSIGNED: There is no standardized and diagnostically validated protocol for the assessment of NSBVAs. Variable cutoff values obtained using different methods and the selection of diagnostic criteria by various researchers have led to discrepancies that highlight the need for diagnostic validity of available protocols (combination of tests) for each anomaly. Clinical signs such as positive relative accommodation (PRA) for accommodative excess, near point of convergence (NPC) for convergence insufficiency and monocular accommodative facility (MAF) for accommodative infacility were found to be useful diagnostic signs of these anomalies. Studies should be carried out for accommodative and vergence dysfunctions using proper designs and methods to validate diagnostic criteria for all age groups. Standardization of assessment protocol and cutoff criteria will also aid in calculating prevalence for non-strabismic binocular vision anomalies.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance in the Developmental Eye Movement test (DEM) and the Test of Visual Perceptual Skills (TVPS) between three groups: individuals with strabismus and amblyopia, patients with binocular and accommodative dysfunctions, and subjects with normal binocular and accommodative function.
METHODS: A multicentric, retrospective study including 110 children aged 6-14 years old was conducted to investigate the potential impact of strabismus, amblyopia, and different binocular conditions in DEM results (adjusted time in vertical and horizontal parts) and TVPS (percentiles in the seven sub-skills).
RESULTS: No significant differences were found in the different subtests of the vertical and horizontal DEM and all the sub-skills in the TVPS between the three groups of the study. We found high variability of performance in the DEM test between participants with strabismus and amblyopia compared with binocular and accommodative problems.
CONCLUSIONS: DEM and TVPS scores have not been found to be influenced by the presence of strabismus with or without amblyopia, nor by binocular and accommodative dysfunctions. A slightly correlation tendency with horizontal DEM and degree of exotropia deviation was observed.

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies have found that children with convergence insufficiency experience higher frequencies of performance-related symptoms (e.g., losing concentration), but data on performance-related symptoms among adults with accommodative dysfunctions (ADs) and/or binocular dysfunctions (BDs) are lacking, which might cause misdiagnosis, diagnostic confusion, or exacerbation of attention deficits. We aimed to describe frequencies and symptom patterns in adults with ADs and/or BDs who were treated at optometric clinics and explore any correlations between visual symptoms and clinical findings.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study divided 235 participants (age: 23.7 ± 2.9 years) into three groups: ADs, BDs, and normal binocular vision (NBV) groups. Convergence Insufficiency Symptom Survey (CISS), refractive examinations, and binocular tests were administered to all participants. After 1-to-1 propensity score matching, outcomes were assessed using Mann‒Whitney U test and Pearson\'s correlation analysis among three groups.
RESULTS: In this sample, the number (frequency) of individuals with ADs and/or BDs was 117 (49.8%). ADs and BDs groups experienced significantly more performance-related symptoms (feeling sleepy, losing concentration, trouble remembering, reading slowly, losing place, and having to re-read; all P < 0.05) than the NBV group. Significant correlations were observed between performance-related symptoms and clinical findings, including accommodative amplitude (r =  - 0.294), accommodative facility (r =  - 0.452), near phoria (r =  - 0.261), near point of convergence (r = 0.482), and positive fusional vergence (r =  - 0.331) (all P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: ADs and/or BDs are commonly present in adults treated at optometric clinics, and adults diagnosed with ADs and/or BDs exhibit more performance-related symptoms than participants with NBV.

BACKGROUND: To analyze whether corneal refractive surgery (CRS) is associated with the distribution of different accommodative dysfunctions (ADs) and binocular dysfunctions (BDs) in civilian pilots. A further aim was to analyze the percentages and visual symptoms associated with ADs and/or BDs in this population.
METHODS: One hundred and eight civilian pilots who underwent CRS from January 2001 to July 2012 (age: 30.33 ± 4.60 years) were enrolled, the mean preoperative SE was - 1.51 ± 1.15 D (range: - 1.00- - 5.00 D). Ninety-nine emmetropic civilian pilots (age: 29.64 ± 3.77 years) who were age- and sex-matched to the CRS group were also enrolled. Refractive status, accommodative and binocular tests of each subject were performed. Visually related symptoms were quantified using the 19-item College of Optometrists in Vision Development Quality of Life (COVD-QOL) questionnaire. The 19 items were summed to obtain visual symptom scores that might indicate visual dysfunctions. The chi-square test was used to analyze differences in percentages of ADs and/or BDs between the CRS and emmetropic groups. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare visual symptom scores between pilots with ADs and/or BDs and pilots with normal binocular vision.
RESULTS: No significant difference was observed between the CRS and emmetropic groups in the overall prevalence of ADs and BDs (15.7% and 15.2% in the CRS and emmetropic groups, respectively; P = 0.185). ADs were present in 4.63% and 3.03% of the CRS and emmetropic group, respectively. BDs were observed in 11.1% and 12.1% of the CRS and emmetropic group, respectively, yielding no significant differences between the groups in the prevalence of ADs or BDs (AD: P = 0.094; BD: P = 0.105). Pilots with ADs and/or BDs had significantly more visual symptoms than pilots with normal binocular vision (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: CRS for civilian pilots with low-moderate myopia might not impact binocular functions. ADs and/or BDs commonly occur in both emmetropia pilots and pilots who undergo CRS, and pilots with ADs and/or BDs are associated with increased symptoms. This study confirms the importance of a full assessment of binocular visual functions in detecting and remedying these dysfunctions in this specific population.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to analyse the prevalence of symptomatic accommodative and non-strabismic binocular dysfunctions in a randomised population of university subjects.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted with a randomised sample of 175 university students aged between 18 and 35 years. All subjects were given a visual examination in which their symptoms were recorded, as well as performing objective and subjective refractive examinations and accommodative and binocular tests. Each subject was tested for the presence of uncorrected refractive error. Accommodative dysfunctions (AD) and binocular dysfunctions (BD) were diagnosed according to the number of clinical signs associated with each disorder, considering the signs that could be associated with each dysfunction as fundamental or complementary. An accommodative or binocular dysfunction was diagnosed when the subjects met two conditions: presenting with any kind of visual symptom in their clinical history and presenting the fundamental sign associated with each dysfunction as well as two or more complementary signs. Those subjects who presented with only an uncorrected refractive error were considered within the group called refractive dysfunction (RD).
RESULTS: The overall prevalence of accommodative and/or binocular dysfunctions was 13.15 per cent and for refractive dysfunction it was 45.14 per cent. Accommodative dysfunctions were present in 2.29 per cent of the population, binocular dysfunctions were observed in eight per cent and accommodative dysfunctions together were found in 2.86 per cent of the university students. Within the accommodative and binocular disorders, the most prevalent dysfunctions were convergence insufficiency, with a prevalence of 3.43 per cent and convergence excess and accommodation excess, both with a prevalence of 2.29 per cent.
CONCLUSIONS: Binocular dysfunctions were more prevalent than accommodative dysfunctions or accommodative and binocular dysfunctions together in a randomised population of university students.