Tim Schilling1, Arne Ohlendorf2, Saulius R Varnas3, Siegfried Wahl2. 1. Institute for Ophthalmic Research, Eberhard Karls University Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany. 2. Institute for Ophthalmic Research, Eberhard Karls University Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany 2Carl Zeiss Vision International GmbH, Aalen, Germany. 3. Carl Zeiss Vision Australia Holdings Limited, Lonsdale, South Australia, Australia.
Abstract
Purpose: Insufficient accommodative response is assumed to result in myopia progression. We have investigated if the accommodative lag in myopes is different between a single vision lens (SVL) and the progressive addition lens PAL 2, clinically trialled for its ability to reduce progression of myopia, and if there exist differences in accommodative lag between PAL 2 and other PALs with the same addition power (+1.50 D). Methods: The influence of spherical SVL and four different designs of PALs that differ in the near zone width (PAL 1) or that have different signs and magnitude of horizontal gradients of mean power adjacent to their near vision zones (PAL 3 and PAL 4) on the accommodative response was investigated for different near viewing distances (40, 33, and 25 cm) in 31 subjects, aged 18 to 25 years. Results: The SVL correction resulted in insufficient accommodative response for the near object viewing distances tested. PAL 2 did significantly reduce accommodative lag for all near object distances tested. The PAL design with a more negative horizontal mean power gradient (PAL 4) provided a lower lag of accommodation when compared with PAL 2 at the shortest object distance of 25 cm (P = 0.03) and was able to reduce the lag of accommodation to a level below the depth of focus for the higher near working distances tested. Conclusions: Designs of PAL with more negative horizontal mean power gradients are the most effective in lowering the lag of accommodation in myopes. This could make them good test candidates for myopia control applications.
Purpose: Insufficient accommodative response is assumed to result in myopia progression. We have investigated if the accommodative lag in myopes is different between a single vision lens (SVL) and the progressive addition lens PAL 2, clinically trialled for its ability to reduce progression of myopia, and if there exist differences in accommodative lag between PAL 2 and other PALs with the same addition power (+1.50 D). Methods: The influence of spherical SVL and four different designs of PALs that differ in the near zone width (PAL 1) or that have different signs and magnitude of horizontal gradients of mean power adjacent to their near vision zones (PAL 3 and PAL 4) on the accommodative response was investigated for different near viewing distances (40, 33, and 25 cm) in 31 subjects, aged 18 to 25 years. Results: The SVL correction resulted in insufficient accommodative response for the near object viewing distances tested. PAL 2 did significantly reduce accommodative lag for all near object distances tested. The PAL design with a more negative horizontal mean power gradient (PAL 4) provided a lower lag of accommodation when compared with PAL 2 at the shortest object distance of 25 cm (P = 0.03) and was able to reduce the lag of accommodation to a level below the depth of focus for the higher near working distances tested. Conclusions: Designs of PAL with more negative horizontal mean power gradients are the most effective in lowering the lag of accommodation in myopes. This could make them good test candidates for myopia control applications.