...
首页> 外文期刊>Strabismus >Treatment of accommodative insufficiency with plus lens reading addition: is +1.00 D better than +2.00 D?
【24h】

Treatment of accommodative insufficiency with plus lens reading addition: is +1.00 D better than +2.00 D?

机译:加上晶状体读数来治疗适应性供血不足:+1.00 D是否比+2.00 D好?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate if +2.00 D lens reading addition has the same effectiveness as +1.00 D reading addition in the treatment of accommodative insufficiency (AI). METHODS: Initially 22 subjects (mean age 11.8 years, +/-3.54 SD) with AI were included in the study. The treatment was given according to a randomization list; 11 subjects were given +1.00 D reading addition and the other 11 were given +2.00 D reading addition, for 8 weeks of treatment. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used to evaluate the subjective degree of asthenopia before and after treatment. RESULTS: The results showed a statistical significant improvement of the accommodative amplitude with +1.00 D reading addition after 8 weeks of treatment. In the +2.00 D reading addition group the improvement of accommodative amplitude was not significant. The reduction in VAS score was significant in both groups. DISCUSSION: The results indicate that +2.00 D reading addition does not exercise the accommodative system in the same amount as +1.00 D reading addition to improve the accommodative amplitude. We therefore recommend that +2.00 D reading addition is not used for treatment of AI.
机译:目的:本研究的目的是评估在适应性供血不足(AI)治疗中,+ 2.00 D晶状体阅读添加是否具有与+1.00 D晶状添加相同的效果。方法:最初包括22名AI患者(平均年龄11.8岁,+ /-3.54 SD)。根据随机对照表给予治疗; 11位受试者接受了+1.00 D的读数添加,其他11位接受了+2.00 D的读数添加,治疗8周。视觉模拟量表(VAS)用于评估治疗前后眼疲劳的主观程度。结果:治疗8周后,增加+1.00 D读数,调节幅度明显改善。在+2.00 D读数添加组中,调节幅度的改善不显着。两组的VAS分数均降低。讨论:结果表明,+ 2.00 D读数添加不能以与+1.00 D读数添加相同的数量来行使调节系统,以提高调节幅度。因此,我们建议不要将+2.00 D读数添加用于AI的治疗。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号