背景:软性隐形眼镜已被开发并获得许可用于减少近视进展。这些镜头有不同的设计,例如扩展焦深(EDOF)和双焦点(DF)。在这个前景中,双面蒙面,交叉研究,研究了不同的晶状体设计,以了解这些设计是否对阅读过程中的调节性微波动和眼球运动有影响.
方法:参与者按随机顺序安装了三个镜片;单视(SV)设计(OmafilconA2;Proclear),DF设计(OmafilconA2;MiSight),和EDOF镜头设计(EtafilconA;NaturalVue),.在每个透镜中至少60s的25厘米处测量调节性微波动,使用适用于22Hz连续记录住宿的Shin-NipponSRW-5000自动折射仪。使用包含Tobii眼条的Thomson临床眼动跟踪器收集眼动数据。眼睛运动包括每行的注视,每分钟的固定,每行均值回归,回归总数,和完全向右扫视。使用功率谱分析分析了调节数据。使用相关样品双向Friedman测试比较镜片之间的差异。
结果:招募了23名参与者(18-29岁)。平均球面误差为-2.65D±1.42DS,平均年龄23.4±3.5岁。没有发现适应性微波动的显着差异。发现每行固定的显着差异(P=0.03),每分钟固定(P=0.008),每行平均回归(P=0.002),和回归总数(P=0.002),但不是总的向右扫视(P=0.10)。事后分析表明,EDOF镜头结果与其他镜头有显著差异,观察到更多的眼球运动。
结论:佩戴EDOF镜头设计时,回归扫视似乎会增加,这可能会影响视觉舒适度。对儿童的进一步研究,为了评估这一发现对儿童日常阅读活动的潜在影响,有必要在更长的适应时间内进行。
BACKGROUND: Soft contact lenses have been developed and licensed for reducing myopia progression. These lenses have different designs, such as extended depth of focus (EDOF) and dual focus (DF). In this prospective, double-masked, cross-over study, different lens designs were investigated to see whether these had impact on accommodative microfluctuations and eye movements during reading.
METHODS: Participants were fitted with three lenses in a randomised order; a single vision (SV) design (Omafilcon A2; Proclear), a DF design (Omafilcon A2; MiSight), and an EDOF lens design (Etafilcon A; NaturalVue),. Accommodative microfluctuations were measured at 25 cm for at least 60s in each lens, using a Shin-Nippon SRW-5000 autorefractor adapted to continuously record accommodation at 22Hz. Eye movement data was collected with the Thomson Clinical Eye Tracker incorporating a Tobii Eye bar. Eye movements include fixations per row, fixations per minute, mean regressions per row, total number of regressions, and total rightward saccades. Accommodation data was analysed using power spectrum analysis. Differences between the lenses were compared using a related sample two-way Friedman test.
RESULTS: Twenty-three participants (18-29 years) were recruited to take part. The average mean spherical error was -2.65D ± 1.42DS, with an average age of 23.4 ± 3.5 years. No significant difference for accommodative microfluctuations was found. Significant differences were found for fixations per row (P = 0.03), fixations per minute (P = 0.008), mean regressions per row (P = 0.002), and total number of regressions (P = 0.002), but not total rightward saccades (P = 0.10). Post-hoc analysis indicated the EDOF lens results were significantly different from the other lenses, with more regressive eye movements observed.
CONCLUSIONS: Regressive saccades appear to increase when wearing EDOF lens designs, which may impact visual comfort. Further studies in children, over a longer period of adaptation are necessary to assess the potential impact of this finding on daily reading activities in children.