CONVERGENCE ABILITY IN PATIENTS AFTER CATARACT PHACOEMULSIFICATION AND PATIENTS WITH THEIR OWN LENS
 
More details
Hide details
1
Students’ Scientific Society, Ophthalmology Clinic and Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine in Katowice, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland
2
Studenci Studenckiego Towarzystwa Naukowe Śląskiego Uniwersytetu Medycznego w Katowicach Students’ Scientific Society, Ophthalmology Clinic and Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine in Katowice, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland
3
Klinika Okulistyki i Katedry Okulistyki, Uniwersyteckie Centrum Okulistyki i Onkologii Samodzielny Publiczny Szpital Kliniczny, Śląski Uniwersytet Medyczny w Katowicach Ophthalmology Clinic and Department of Ophthalmology, University Centre of Ophthalmology and Oncology, School of Medicine in Katowice, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland,
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Marcin Piotr Jaworski   

Students’ Scientific Society, Ophthalmology Clinic and Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine in Katowice, Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland, Wisniowa 10, 41-500 Chorzow, Polska
 
Ann. Acad. Med. Siles. 2017;71:19–24
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
The aim of this study was to determine whether convergence varies with age and pseudophakia.

Material and methods:
86 patients, aged 21–85 (average age: 62.7) years were included in the study group: 39 patients with binocular pseudophakia and 41 with their own lens, as well as 68 people with their own lens, at the age of 19–25 (average 22.1) years. Examinations were carried out at distances of 50 and 10 cm, and for distant vision. Interpupillary distance measurements were used to calculate the difference of convergence capabilities. The examination results of phakic and pseudophakic eyes were compared.

Results:
The mean convergence of the pseudophakic patients was 3.52 mm (± 0.42 mm), in the patients with their own lens: 3.46 (± 0.74 mm). No statistically significant differences between the groups were found. No statistically significant difference was found in the mean convergence between the two groups of patients aged 19–25 (group 1) and over 65 years (group 2), either. The average value of convergence in group 1 was 3.47 mm (3.84–2.93 mm). However, in the second group the values were 3.46 mm (3.96–2.48 mm). There was no evidence of statistical differences in the average value of convergence in both groups for distances of 50 cm and 10 cm.

Conclusions:
Convergence does not depend on age. Presbyopia does not lead to a loss of convergence in phakic or pseudophakic eyes.

 
REFERENCES (16)
1.
Singh V. Visual System. In: Singh V. Textbook of Clinical Neuroanato-my. Elsevier India 2014, 217–218.
 
2.
Davson H. The muscular mechanisms. In: Davson H. Physiology of the eye. U.S. Academic Press 1980, 383–500.
 
3.
Kinoshita J.H. Mechanisms initiating cataract formation. Proctor Lecture. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 1974; 13(10): 713–724.
 
4.
Gimbel H.V. Divide and conquer nucleofractis phacoemulsification: Development and variations. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 1991; 17(3): 271–291.
 
5.
Millodot M. Dictionary of Optometry and Visual Science. Butterworth-Heinemann, New York 2009.
 
6.
Przekoracka-Krawczyk A., Naskręcki R. Dysfunkcja akomodacji i meto-dy jej badań. Optyka (Nauka). 2010; 6(7): 24–30.
 
7.
Jadanowski K., Budrewicz S., Koziorowska-Gawron E. Zaburzenia gałkoruchowe w chorobach ośrodkowego układu nerwowego. Pol. Przegl. Neurol. 2010; 6(4): 202–211.
 
8.
Gamlin P.D. Neural mechanisms for the control of vergence eye movements. Ann. N Y Acad. Sci. 2002; 956: 264–272.
 
9.
Kozicz T., Bittencourt J.C., May P.J., Reiner A., Gamlin P.D., Palkovits M., Horn A.K., Toledo C.A., Ryabinin A.E. The Edinger-Westphal nucleus: a historical, structural, and functional perspective on a dichotomous terminology. J. Comp. Neurol. 2011; 519(8): 1413–1434.
 
10.
Schall J.D., Morel A., King D.J., Bullier J. Topography of visual cortex connections with frontal eye field in macaque: convergence and segregation of processing streams. J. Neurosci 1995; 15(6): 4464–4487.
 
11.
Gamlin P.D., Yoon K. An area for vergence eye movement in primate frontal cortex. Nature 2000; 407(6807): 1003–1007.
 
12.
Savaki H.E., Gregoriou G.G., Bakola S., Moschovakis A.K. Topography of Visuomotor Parameters in the Frontal and Premotor Eye Fields. Cereb Cortex 2015; 25(9): 3095–3106, doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhu106.
 
13.
Bruce A.S., Atchison D.A., Bhoola H. Accommodation-convergence relationships and age. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 1995; 36(2): 406–413.
 
14.
Scheiman M., Cotter S., Rouse M., Mitchell G.L., Kulp M., Cooper J., Borsting E. Randomised clinical trial of the effectiveness of base-in prism reading glasses versus placebo reading glasses for symptomatic convergence insufficiency in children. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2005; 89(10): 1318–1323.
 
15.
Rajska K., Loba P., Broniarczyk-Loba A. The influence of sensory deprivation on binocular vision after bilateral cataract extraction with intraocular lens implantation. Klinika Oczna 2012; 4: 261.
 
16.
Nemeth G., Lipecz A., Szalai E., Berta A., Modis L. Jr. Accommodation in phakic and pseudophakic eyes measured with subjective and objective methods. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2013; 39(10): 1534–1542.
 
eISSN:1734-025X