Diagnostic capabilities of computer accommodography in middleaged (presbyopic) individuals

Background. Presbyopia research aims to improve the quality of life of the aging population by correcting near vision and timely addressing accommodative disorders in presbyopes, particularly when combined with hypermetropic and myopic refraction.
The aim. To assess the parameters of computer accommodography in individuals aged 45–59 with presbyopia combined with hypermetropic and myopic refraction.
Methods. A cross-sectional study was conducted on a random sample of Arkhangelsk population aged 45–59 (n = 69), including ophthalmological examination with a comprehensive accommodation assessment. Data of 127 eyes were analysed. Participants were divided into five groups: those diagnosed with myopia (mild, moderate, and high degree), those with presbyopia (with emmetropia), and those with presbyopia accompanied by hypermetropia (refraction up to 3.0 D inclusive).
Results. In 32.3% of cases (41 eyes), no ocular pathology was detected except for presbyopia. Myopic refraction was found in 46.5% of cases (59 eyes), with an average refraction of 3.26±0.13 D in this group. When comparing groups on quantitative accommodogram parameters, the highest microfluctuation coefficient (up to +3.0 D inclusive) was in participants with moderate myopia and in those with age-related presbyopia combined with hypermetropia, the lowest – in participants with presbyopia (with emmetropia) and in groups with mild and high myopia (p = 0.028). Microfluctuation coefficient was the most stable was in individuals without visual organ pathology, with the exception of age-related presbyopia, and among participants with mild myopia (p = 0.017).
Conclusion. The use of computer accommodography in ophthalmological practice can significantly expand diagnostic capabilities for identifying accommodative changes in middle-aged individuals.

1. Blindness GBD, Vision Impairment C. Trends in prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment over 30 years: an analysis for the global burden of disease study. Lancet Glob Health. 2021; 9: e130–43. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30425-3

2. Wolffsohn JS, Davies LN, Sheppard AL. New insights in presbyopia: impact of correction strategies. BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2023; 8(1): e001122. doi: 10.1136/bmjophth-2022-001122

3. Rozanova OI, Shchuko AG. Presbyopia. Moscow: Ophthalmology Publishing House, 2015. 154. (In Russ.).

4. Gualdi L, Gualdi F, Rusciano D, et al. Ciliary Muscle Electrostimulation to Restore Accommodation in Patients With Early Presbyopia: Preliminary Results. Journal of Refractive Surgery. 2017; 33(9): 578-583. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20170621-05

5. Wolffsohn JS, Davies LN. Presbyopia: effectiveness of correction strategies. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2019; 68: 124–43. doi: 10.1016/j.preteyeres.2018.09.004

6. Rozanova OI, Shchuko AG, Mischenko TS. Fundamentals of Presbyopia: visual processing and binocularity in its transformation. Eye and Vis. 2018; 5: 1. doi: 10.1186/s40662-018-0095-0

7. Dhallu SK, Sheppard AL, Drew T, Mihashi T, Zapata-Díaz JF, Radhakrishnan H, et al. Factors influencing pseudo-accommodation-the difference between subjectively reported range of clear focus and objectively measured accommodation range. Vision (Basel). 2019; 3(3): 34. doi: 10.3390/vision3030034

8. Davies LN, Biswas S, Bullimore M, Cruickshank F, Estevez JJ, Khanal S, et al. BCLA CLEAR presbyopia: Mechanism and optics. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2024; 47(4): 102185. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2024.102185

9. Plainis S, Panagopoulou S, Charman WN. Longitudinal changes in objective accommodative response, pupil size and spherical aberration: A case study. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2024; 44(1): 168-176. doi: 10.1111/opo.13250

10. Rozanova OI, Seliverstova NN, Shchuko AG, Malyshev VV. Regularities of structural and functional visual system changes in patients with myopic refraction and presbyopia. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2013; 129(2): 50-53. (In Russ.).

11. Fricke TR. Global Prevalence of Presbyopia and Vision Impairment from Uncorrected Presbyopia. Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Modelling. Ophthalmology. 2018; 125: 1492-1499. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.04.013

12. Zelentsov R, Poskotinova L, Moiseeva A, Kudryavtsev AV. Prospects for using computer accommodography to predict myopia development in young adults. Life. 2024; 14: 324. doi: 10.3390/life14030324

13. Cook S, Malyutina S, Kudryavtsev A, et al. Know Your Heart: rationale, design and conduct of a cross-sectional study of cardiovascular structure, function and risk factors in 4500 men and women aged 35-69 years from two Russian cities, 2015-18 [version 3; peer review: 3 approved]. Wellcome Open Res. 2018; 3: 67. doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.14619.3

14. Right. Medical Equipment. URL: https://rightmfg.co.jp/service/product.html [date of access: October 23, 2024].

15. Kajita M., Muraoka T., Orsborn G. Changes in accommodative micro-fluctuations after wearing contact lenses of different optical designs. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2020; 43(5): 493-496. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2020.03.003

16. Federal Clinical Guidelines. Myopia. Approved by the Scientific and Practical Council of the Ministry of Health of Russia. 2020. (In Russ.). URL: https://cr.minzdrav.gov.ru/schema/109_1 [date of access: October 22, 2024].

17. Wolffsohn JS, Berkow D, Chan KY, Chaurasiya SK, Fadel D, Haddad M, et al. BCLA CLEAR Presbyopia: Evaluation and diagnosis. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2024; 47(4): 102156. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2024.102156

18. Shalygina EL, Ovechkin IG. On the issue of mechanisms of accommodation during implantation of accommodating intraocular lenses. Actual problems of medical rehabilitation (collection of scientific papers dedicated to the 25th anniversary of Branch No. 2 of the Federal State Budgetary Institution “3 Central Military Clinical Hospital named after A.A. Vishnevsky” of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian (In Russ.).

19. Ovechkin IG, Antonyuk VD, Antonyuk SV, Shalygina EL. Study of accommodative capacity in presbyopic patients without visual pathology. Cataract and refractive surgery. 2013; 1(9): 47–49. (In Russ.).

20. Ovechkin IG, Belikova EI, Shalygina EL, Antonyuk SV, Ovechkin NI. The accommodative ability of the eye of patients after cataract phacoemulsification with implantation of monofocal, multifocal and accommodating intraocular lenses. Russian Ophthalmological Journal. 2014; 3: 32–7 (In Russ.).

21. Konovalov ME, et al. Comparative Evaluation of the Defocus Curve of Monofocal IOL, Extended Depth of Focus IOL, and Trifocal IOL. Ophthalmology in Russia. 2023; 20(4): 683-687. (In Russ.). doi: 10.18008/1816-5095-2023-4-683-687