Comparison of the Amplitude of Accommodation Measured Using Push-up, Minus Lens-to-Blur Methods and Hofstetter's Equations in Saudi University Students

Basal Hamad Altoaimi

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijovs.20220701.16

| Peer-Reviewed

Comparison of the Amplitude of Accommodation Measured Using Push-up, Minus Lens-to-Blur Methods and Hofstetter's Equations in Saudi University Students

Basal Hamad Altoaimi

Published in International Journal of Ophthalmology & Visual Science (Volume 7, Issue 1)

Received: 3 February 2022 Accepted: 24 February 2022 Published: 4 March 2022

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Background: Commonly, two clinical techniques are used to measure the amplitude of accommodation: push-up and minus lens-to-blur approaches. However, there is no consensus on the accurate technique for assessing the accommodative amplitude in the clinical eye examination. Aim: This study was to compare push-up and minus lens-to-blur methods and Hofstetter's equations for assessing the amplitude of accommodation in Saudi university students. Methods: This was a comparative cross-sectional, performed in the department of optometry clinic between February and May 2020. The amplitude of accommodation was assessed on 79 Saudi young students (62 males and 17 females, mean age and standard deviation was 23.50 ± 2.29 years old using the push-up and minus lens-to-blur methods and calculated using Hofstetter's equations. Results: The findings showed that the highest mean of the amplitude of accommodation was found by using the Hofstetter's maximum equation (15.2 ± 0.9D), whereas the minus lens-to-blur technique provided the lowest result (8.6 ± 1.6D). Using the t-test, significant changes were seen between all methods P<0.0001 except the minus lens-to-blur method and Hofstetter's minimum equation P=0.077. Measurements by different methods revealed an opposite association between subjects' age and amplitude of accommodation. Conclusion: Given the significant variance in results obtained between the different techniques for measuring the amplitude of accommodation, caution should be taken once making decisions regarding amplitude accommodation assessment in young subjects with accommodative disorders and binocular vision abnormalities.

Published in	International Journal of Ophthalmology & Visual Science (Volume 7, Issue 1)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijovs.20220701.16
Page(s)	33-39
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Amplitude of Accommodation, Minus Lens-to-Blur, Push-up, Hofstetter's Equation, Optometrists, Diopter

References

[1]	Ovenseri-Ogbomo GO, Oduntan OA. Comparison of measured with calculated amplitude of accommodation in Nigerian children aged six to 16 years. Clinical and Experimental Optometry. 2018 Jul; 101 (4): 571-577.
[2]	Wold JE, Hu A, Chen S, Glasser A. Subjective and objective measurement of human accommodative amplitude. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29: 1878-1888.
[3]	Plainis S, Charman WN, Pallikaris IG. The physiologic mechanism of accommodation. Cataract & Refractive Surgery Today Europe. 2014 Apr; 4: 23-9.
[4]	Levy NS. The mechanism of accommodation in primates. Ophthalmology 2000; 107 (4): 627.
[5]	Glasser A, Kaufman PL. The mechanism of accommodation in primates. Ophthalmology 1999; 106: 863–872.
[6]	Dubbelman M, van der Heijde GL, Weeber HA. Change in shape of the aging human crystalline lens with accommodation. Vis Res. 2005; 45 (1): 117–132.
[7]	Amiebenomo OM, Ovenseri-Ogbomo GO, Nwacheli C. Comparing measurement techniques of accommodative amplitude among school children. Optometry and Visual Performance. 2018 Oct 1; 6 (5): 181-186.
[8]	Momeni-Moghaddam H, Kundart J, Askarizadeh F. Comparing measurement techniques of accommodative amplitudes. Indian Journal of ophthalmology. 2014 Jun; 62 (6): 683.
[9]	Anderson HA, Hentz G, Glasser A, Stuebing KK, Manny RE. Minus-lens–stimulated accommodative amplitude decreases sigmoidally with age: a study of objectively measured accommodative amplitudes from age 3. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science. 2008 Jul 1; 49 (7): 2919-26.
[10]	Alrasheed SH. Clinical Characteristics of Patients Presenting with Headache at Binocular Vision Clinic: A Hospital-Based Study. Pak J Ophthalmol. 2020; 36 (3): 247-252.
[11]	Bruce AS, Atchison DA, Bhoola H. Accommodation-convergence relationships, and age. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science. 1995 Feb 1; 36 (2): 406-13.
[12]	Alrasheed SH, Elmadina AEM. The Effect of Binocular Vision Problems on Childhood Academic Performance and Teachers' Perspectives. Pak J Ophthalmol. 2020, 36 (2): 162-167.
[13]	Elliott DB. Clinical Procedures in Primary Eye Care. 3rd ed. Butterworth-Heinemann; 2007. p. 191-2.
[14]	Sterner B, Gellerstedt M, Sjöström A. The amplitude of accommodation in 6–10-year-old children–not as good as expected! Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics. 2004 May; 24 (3): 246-51.
[15]	Ostrin LA, Glasser A. Accommodation measurements in a prepresbyopic and presbyopic population. Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery. 2004 Jul 1; 30 (7): 1435-44.
[16]	Mathebula SD, Ntsoane MD, Makgaba NT, Landela KL. Comparison of the amplitude of accommodation determined subjectively and objectively in South African university students. Afr Vision Eye Health. 2018; 77 (1), a437. https://doi.org/10.4102/aveh. v77i1.437.
[17]	Hofstetter HW. Useful age-amplitude formula. Optom World 1950; 38: 42–45.
[18]	Elliott DB. Clinical procedures in primary eye care E-Book. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2020 Jan 30.
[19]	Grosvenor T. Primary care optometry. 5th ed. London: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2007.
[20]	Atchison DA, Capper EJ, McCabe KL. Critical subjective measurement of the amplitude of accommodation. Optom Vis Sci. 1994; 71 (11): 699–706.
[21]	Alrasheed SH, Naidoo KS, Clarke-Farr PC. Prevalence of visual impairment and refractive error in school-aged children in South Darfur State of Sudan. Afr Vision Eye Health. 2016; 75 (1), a355. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ aveh. v75i1.355.
[22]	Koslowe K, Glassman T, Tzanani-Levi C, Shneor E. Accommodative Amplitude Determination: Pull-away versus Push-up Method. Optometry & Vision Development. 2010 Mar 1; 41 (1): 28-32.
[23]	Taub MB, Shallo-Hoffmann J. A Comparison of Three Clinical Tests of Accommodation Amplitude to Hofstetter's Norms to Guide Diagnosis and Treatment. Optometry & Vision Development. 2012 Dec 1; 43 (4): 180-190.
[24]	León AÁ, Medrano SM, Rosenfield M. A comparison of the reliability of dynamic retinoscopy and subjective measurements of the amplitude of accommodation. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics. 2012 Mar; 32 (2): 133-141.
[25]	Burns DH, Evans BJ, Allen PM. Clinical measurement of the amplitude of accommodation: a review. Optom Pract. 2014; 15 (3): 75-85.
[26]	Dusek WA, Pierscionek BK, McClelland JF. Age variations in intraocular pressure in a cohort of healthy Austrian school children. Eye. 2012 Jun; 26 (6): 841-5.
[27]	Palomo-Álvarez C, Puell MC. Accommodative function in school children with reading difficulties. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology. 2008 Dec; 246 (12): 1769-74.
[28]	Takahashi Y, Igaki M, Suzuki A, Takahashi G, Dogru M, Tsubota K. The effect of periocular warming on accommodation. Ophthalmology. 2005 Jun 1; 112 (6): 1113-8.
[29]	Chase C, Tosha C, Borsting E, Ridder III WH. Visual discomfort and objective measures of static accommodation. Optometry and Vision Science. 2009 Jul 1; 86 (7): 883-9.
[30]	Abdi Ahmed Z; Alrasheed SH; Alghamdi W. Prevalence of refractive error and visual impairment among school-age children of Hargesia, Somaliland, Somalia. East Mediterr Health J. 2020; 26 (11): 1362-1370.
[31]	Turner MJ. Observations on the normal subjective amplitude of accommodation. The British journal of physiological optics. 1958 Apr; 15 (2): 70-100.
[32]	Wold RM. The spectacle amplitude of accommodation of children aged six to ten. Optometry and Vision Science. 1967 Oct 1; 44 (10): 642-64.
[33]	Ovenseri-Ogbomo GO, Kudjawu EP, Kio FE, Abu EK. Investigation of the amplitude of accommodation among Ghanaian school children. Clinical and Experimental Optometry. 2012 Mar 1; 95 (2): 187-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2011.00692.x.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Basal Hamad Altoaimi. (2022). Comparison of the Amplitude of Accommodation Measured Using Push-up, Minus Lens-to-Blur Methods and Hofstetter's Equations in Saudi University Students. International Journal of Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 7(1), 33-39. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijovs.20220701.16

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Basal Hamad Altoaimi. Comparison of the Amplitude of Accommodation Measured Using Push-up, Minus Lens-to-Blur Methods and Hofstetter's Equations in Saudi University Students. Int. J. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2022, 7(1), 33-39. doi: 10.11648/j.ijovs.20220701.16

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Basal Hamad Altoaimi. Comparison of the Amplitude of Accommodation Measured Using Push-up, Minus Lens-to-Blur Methods and Hofstetter's Equations in Saudi University Students. Int J Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2022;7(1):33-39. doi: 10.11648/j.ijovs.20220701.16

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijovs.20220701.16,
  author = {Basal Hamad Altoaimi},
  title = {Comparison of the Amplitude of Accommodation Measured Using Push-up, Minus Lens-to-Blur Methods and Hofstetter's Equations in Saudi University Students},
  journal = {International Journal of Ophthalmology & Visual Science},
  volume = {7},
  number = {1},
  pages = {33-39},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijovs.20220701.16},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijovs.20220701.16},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijovs.20220701.16},
  abstract = {Background: Commonly, two clinical techniques are used to measure the amplitude of accommodation: push-up and minus lens-to-blur approaches. However, there is no consensus on the accurate technique for assessing the accommodative amplitude in the clinical eye examination. Aim: This study was to compare push-up and minus lens-to-blur methods and Hofstetter's equations for assessing the amplitude of accommodation in Saudi university students. Methods: This was a comparative cross-sectional, performed in the department of optometry clinic between February and May 2020. The amplitude of accommodation was assessed on 79 Saudi young students (62 males and 17 females, mean age and standard deviation was 23.50 ± 2.29 years old using the push-up and minus lens-to-blur methods and calculated using Hofstetter's equations. Results: The findings showed that the highest mean of the amplitude of accommodation was found by using the Hofstetter's maximum equation (15.2 ± 0.9D), whereas the minus lens-to-blur technique provided the lowest result (8.6 ± 1.6D). Using the t-test, significant changes were seen between all methods PConclusion: Given the significant variance in results obtained between the different techniques for measuring the amplitude of accommodation, caution should be taken once making decisions regarding amplitude accommodation assessment in young subjects with accommodative disorders and binocular vision abnormalities.},
 year = {2022}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Comparison of the Amplitude of Accommodation Measured Using Push-up, Minus Lens-to-Blur Methods and Hofstetter's Equations in Saudi University Students
AU  - Basal Hamad Altoaimi
Y1  - 2022/03/04
PY  - 2022
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijovs.20220701.16
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijovs.20220701.16
T2  - International Journal of Ophthalmology & Visual Science
JF  - International Journal of Ophthalmology & Visual Science
JO  - International Journal of Ophthalmology & Visual Science
SP  - 33
EP  - 39
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2637-3858
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijovs.20220701.16
AB  - Background: Commonly, two clinical techniques are used to measure the amplitude of accommodation: push-up and minus lens-to-blur approaches. However, there is no consensus on the accurate technique for assessing the accommodative amplitude in the clinical eye examination. Aim: This study was to compare push-up and minus lens-to-blur methods and Hofstetter's equations for assessing the amplitude of accommodation in Saudi university students. Methods: This was a comparative cross-sectional, performed in the department of optometry clinic between February and May 2020. The amplitude of accommodation was assessed on 79 Saudi young students (62 males and 17 females, mean age and standard deviation was 23.50 ± 2.29 years old using the push-up and minus lens-to-blur methods and calculated using Hofstetter's equations. Results: The findings showed that the highest mean of the amplitude of accommodation was found by using the Hofstetter's maximum equation (15.2 ± 0.9D), whereas the minus lens-to-blur technique provided the lowest result (8.6 ± 1.6D). Using the t-test, significant changes were seen between all methods PConclusion: Given the significant variance in results obtained between the different techniques for measuring the amplitude of accommodation, caution should be taken once making decisions regarding amplitude accommodation assessment in young subjects with accommodative disorders and binocular vision abnormalities.
VL  - 7
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Basal Hamad Altoaimi

Department of Optometry, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Basal Hamad Altoaimi. (2022). Comparison of the Amplitude of Accommodation Measured Using Push-up, Minus Lens-to-Blur Methods and Hofstetter's Equations in Saudi University Students. International Journal of Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 7(1), 33-39. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijovs.20220701.16

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Basal Hamad Altoaimi. Comparison of the Amplitude of Accommodation Measured Using Push-up, Minus Lens-to-Blur Methods and Hofstetter's Equations in Saudi University Students. Int. J. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2022, 7(1), 33-39. doi: 10.11648/j.ijovs.20220701.16

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Basal Hamad Altoaimi. Comparison of the Amplitude of Accommodation Measured Using Push-up, Minus Lens-to-Blur Methods and Hofstetter's Equations in Saudi University Students. Int J Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2022;7(1):33-39. doi: 10.11648/j.ijovs.20220701.16

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijovs.20220701.16,
  author = {Basal Hamad Altoaimi},
  title = {Comparison of the Amplitude of Accommodation Measured Using Push-up, Minus Lens-to-Blur Methods and Hofstetter's Equations in Saudi University Students},
  journal = {International Journal of Ophthalmology & Visual Science},
  volume = {7},
  number = {1},
  pages = {33-39},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijovs.20220701.16},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijovs.20220701.16},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijovs.20220701.16},
  abstract = {Background: Commonly, two clinical techniques are used to measure the amplitude of accommodation: push-up and minus lens-to-blur approaches. However, there is no consensus on the accurate technique for assessing the accommodative amplitude in the clinical eye examination. Aim: This study was to compare push-up and minus lens-to-blur methods and Hofstetter's equations for assessing the amplitude of accommodation in Saudi university students. Methods: This was a comparative cross-sectional, performed in the department of optometry clinic between February and May 2020. The amplitude of accommodation was assessed on 79 Saudi young students (62 males and 17 females, mean age and standard deviation was 23.50 ± 2.29 years old using the push-up and minus lens-to-blur methods and calculated using Hofstetter's equations. Results: The findings showed that the highest mean of the amplitude of accommodation was found by using the Hofstetter's maximum equation (15.2 ± 0.9D), whereas the minus lens-to-blur technique provided the lowest result (8.6 ± 1.6D). Using the t-test, significant changes were seen between all methods PConclusion: Given the significant variance in results obtained between the different techniques for measuring the amplitude of accommodation, caution should be taken once making decisions regarding amplitude accommodation assessment in young subjects with accommodative disorders and binocular vision abnormalities.},
 year = {2022}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Comparison of the Amplitude of Accommodation Measured Using Push-up, Minus Lens-to-Blur Methods and Hofstetter's Equations in Saudi University Students
AU  - Basal Hamad Altoaimi
Y1  - 2022/03/04
PY  - 2022
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijovs.20220701.16
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijovs.20220701.16
T2  - International Journal of Ophthalmology & Visual Science
JF  - International Journal of Ophthalmology & Visual Science
JO  - International Journal of Ophthalmology & Visual Science
SP  - 33
EP  - 39
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2637-3858
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijovs.20220701.16
AB  - Background: Commonly, two clinical techniques are used to measure the amplitude of accommodation: push-up and minus lens-to-blur approaches. However, there is no consensus on the accurate technique for assessing the accommodative amplitude in the clinical eye examination. Aim: This study was to compare push-up and minus lens-to-blur methods and Hofstetter's equations for assessing the amplitude of accommodation in Saudi university students. Methods: This was a comparative cross-sectional, performed in the department of optometry clinic between February and May 2020. The amplitude of accommodation was assessed on 79 Saudi young students (62 males and 17 females, mean age and standard deviation was 23.50 ± 2.29 years old using the push-up and minus lens-to-blur methods and calculated using Hofstetter's equations. Results: The findings showed that the highest mean of the amplitude of accommodation was found by using the Hofstetter's maximum equation (15.2 ± 0.9D), whereas the minus lens-to-blur technique provided the lowest result (8.6 ± 1.6D). Using the t-test, significant changes were seen between all methods PConclusion: Given the significant variance in results obtained between the different techniques for measuring the amplitude of accommodation, caution should be taken once making decisions regarding amplitude accommodation assessment in young subjects with accommodative disorders and binocular vision abnormalities.
VL  - 7
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download