不同测量方法测得调节反应的比较  

Comparison of different techniques to assess the near accommodative responses

作　　者：王婷[1] 李丽华[1] 王蕊[1] 程文博[1] 赵堪兴[1] 

机构地区：[1]天津医科大学眼科临床学院,天津市眼科医院,天津市眼科研究所,天津市眼科学与视觉科学重点研究室,天津300020

出　　处：《中国实用眼科杂志》2012年第5期562-565,共4页Chinese Journal of Practical Ophthalmology

摘　　要：目的研究分析不同测量方法对矫正视力≥1．0且眼位正常的人的调节反应的影响。方法63位志愿者参加研究，分别使用开放视野式红外线自动验光仪和综合验光仪交叉柱镜法测量受试者眼在双眼视和单眼视状态下注视40cm处视标的调节反应值。测量时区分主导眼和非主导眼。结果四种不同测量方法下正常人主导眼和非主导眼的调节反应值之间进行比较，差异均无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。采用主导眼在不同方法下测得的调节反应值进行方差分析，发现不同方法之间差异有统计学意义（F=80．926；P=0．000）。结论正常人主导眼和非主导眼的调节反应之间无明显差异。不论是在双眼视还是单眼视状态下，主观的交又柱镜法测得的调节反应均大于客观的开放视野式红外线自动验光仪方法所得；主观的交叉柱镜法较难真实反应调节活跃的青年人的调节状态。Objective To compare clinical subjective findings with objective measurements of the accommodative response （AR） in a young population. Methods Sixty-three volunteers were enrolled in this study. Subjective findings to a 2.50D accommodative stimulus obtained with the dynam- ic cross cylinder test were compared with objective measurements of the AR obtained with an open-field infrared autorefractor under both binocular and monocular conditions. Whether there were differences between the dominant and non-dominant eyes were also compared. Results There were no differences in the AR between the dominant and non-dominant eyes using any method （P 〉0.05）. The AR showed a statistical difference among the four different measurements （F =80.926; P = 0.000）. Conclusions There are no differences in the AR between the normal people＇s two eyes. No matter using the binocular stimulus or the monocular stimulus, the AR obtained with the subjec- tive method is greater than that with the objective method.

关 键 词：调节 近距离检查 自动验光仪 交叉柱镜 

分 类 号：R770.425[医药卫生—眼科]