Vision-related symptoms, accommodative and binocular vision performance in young diabetics vs. normal controls.
accommodation
diabetes
haemoglobin A1c
vergence
vision-related symptoms
Journal
Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)
ISSN: 1475-1313
Titre abrégé: Ophthalmic Physiol Opt
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8208839
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2022
07 2022
Historique:
revised:
02
02
2022
received:
15
12
2021
accepted:
03
02
2022
pubmed:
4
3
2022
medline:
9
6
2022
entrez:
3
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare accommodative and binocular vision performance between young diabetic subjects and normal controls, and to investigate the correlation of accommodative/binocular indices with the severity of diabetes. Thirty young subjects with diabetes mellitus (DM) and 30 age-matched normal controls were recruited in this hospital-based cross-sectional study. DM was diagnosed by a haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) higher than 6.5%. The status of vision-related symptoms was examined by the convergence insufficiency symptoms survey (CISS). All participants underwent a complete optometric examination including visual acuity measurement, objective and subjective refraction, accommodative and binocular vision assessments. All study participants were between 18 and 40 years of age. There were no statistically significant differences in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), sphere, cylinder and spherical equivalent refraction (SE) between the diabetes and control groups. The median near point of convergence (NPC) was significantly more remote in diabetics compared with the control group. Mean accommodative amplitude (AA) and vergence facility (VF) and the median monocular accommodative facility (AF) were significantly lower in diabetic subjects compared with normal controls. In addition, the median accommodative lag in the diabetic group was significantly higher than the control group. A significantly higher percentage of the diabetic group were symptomatic (26.6%), compared with the controls (6.6%). The NPC and accommodative lag showed a significant positive correlation with the HbA1c level, while VF, AA and AF exhibited a significant negative correlation with HbA1c. Aspects of accommodative and binocular vision performance are strongly affected by DM. There is also a significant correlation between accommodative and binocular disorders with the severity of DM. A significant percentage of young subjects with DM have severe vision-related symptoms.
Substances chimiques
Glycated Hemoglobin A
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
904-912Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics © 2022 The College of Optometrists.
Références
Zhou B, Lu Y, Hajifathalian K, et al. Worldwide trends in diabetes since 1980: a pooled analysis of 751 population-based studies with 4· 4 million participants. Lancet. 2016;387:1513-30.
Harding JL, Pavkov ME, Magliano DJ, et al. Global trends in diabetes complications: a review of current evidence. Diabetologia. 2019;62:3-16.
Rodríguez-Almagro J, García-Manzanares Á, Lucendo AJ, et al. Health-related quality of life in diabetes mellitus and its social, demographic and clinical determinants: a nationwide cross-sectional survey. J Clin Nurs. 2018;27:4212-23.
Saeedi P, Petersohn I, Salpea P, et al. Global and regional diabetes prevalence estimates for 2019 and projections for 2030 and 2045: Results from the International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2019;157:107843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2019.107843
Lascar N, Brown J, Pattison H, et al. Type 2 diabetes in adolescents and young adults. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018;6:69-80.
Urakami T. Increased trend in the incidence of diabetes among youths in the USA during 2002-2012. J Diabetes Investig. 2017;8:748-9.
Candler T, Mahmoud O, Lynn R, et al. Continuing rise of type 2 diabetes incidence in children and young people in the UK. Diabet Med. 2018;35:737-44.
Wong J, Molyneaux L, Constantino M, et al. Timing is everything: age of onset influences long-term retinopathy risk in type 2 diabetes, independent of traditional risk factors. Diabetes Care. 2008;31:1985-90.
Skarbez K, Priestley Y, Hoepf M, et al. Comprehensive review of the effects of diabetes on ocular health. Expert Rev Ophthalmol. 2010;5:557-77.
Sabanayagam C, Banu R, Chee ML, et al. Incidence and progression of diabetic retinopathy: a systematic review. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019;7:140-9.
Adnan A, Efron N, Mathur A, et al. Amplitude of accommodation in type 1 diabetes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55:7014-8.
Mathebula S, Makunyane P. Amplitude of accommodation is reduced in pre-presbyopic diabetic patients. JEMDSA. 2017;22:64-8.
Abokyi S, Ilechie A, Asaam KA, et al. Fasting plasma sugar: a predictor of accommodative function in diabetes. Curr Eye Res. 2016;41:791-7.
Etezad Razavi M, Sharifi M, et al. Accommodative ability in prepresbyopic diabetic patients. Patient Saf Qual Improv. 2015;3:203-5.
Sridhar S, Ramachandra S. Accommodative parameter assessment in peri-presbyopic early onset diabetics with age matched healthy individuals-A case control study. Indian J Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2020;6:422-8.
Sırakaya E, Küçük B, Sırakaya HA. The influence of type 1 diabetes mellitus on amplitude of accommodation. Curr Eye Res. 2020;45:873-8.
Moss SE, Klein R, Klein BE. Accommodative ability in younger-onset diabetes. Arch Ophthalmol. 1987;105:508-12.
Schor CM. A dynamic model of cross-coupling between accommodation and convergence: simulations of step and frequency responses. Optom Vis Sci. 1992;69:258-69.
Yekta A, Khabazkhoob M, Hashemi H, et al. Binocular and accommodative characteristics in a normal population. Strabismus. 2017;25:5-11.
García-Muñoz Á, Carbonell-Bonete S, Cacho-Martínez P. Symptomatology associated with accommodative and binocular vision anomalies. J Optom. 2014;7:178-92.
Hashemi H, Nabovati P, Khabazkhoob M, et al. The prevalence of convergence insufficiency in Iran: a population-based study. Clin Exp Optom. 2017;100:704-9.
Clifton L, Birks J, Clifton DA. Comparing different ways of calculating sample size for two independent means: a worked example. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2018;29:100309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2018.100309
International Expert Committee. International expert committee report on the role of the A1C assay in the diagnosis of diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2009;32:1327-34.
Nabovati P, Kamali M, Khabazkhoob M, et al. Psychometric assessment of the Persian version of the revised convergence insufficiency symptom survey in young adults with convergence insufficiency. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2020;32:395-401.
Scheiman M, Wick B. Clinical management of binocular vision: heterophoric, accommodative, and eye movement disorders, 4th edn. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams &Wilkins; 2014.
Rouse MW, Borsting EJ, Mitchell GL, et al. Validity and reliability of the revised convergence insufficiency symptom survey in adults. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2004;24:384-90.
Abokyi S, Ayerakwah PA, Abu SL, et al. Controlled blood sugar improves the eye's accommodative ability in type-1 diabetes. Eye. 2021;35:1198-204.
Fisher R. The elastic constants of the human lens. J Physiol. 1971;212:147-80.
Bron A, Sparrow J, Brown N, et al. The lens in diabetes. Eye. 1993;7:260-75.
Pierro L, Brancato R, Zaganelli E, et al. Correlation of lens thickness with blood glucose control in diabetes mellitus. Acta Ophthalmol. 1996;74:539-41.
Gabbay KH. The sorbitol pathway and the complications of diabetes. N Engl J Med. 1973;288:831-6.
Okamoto F, Sone H, Nonoyama T, et al. Refractive changes in diabetic patients during intensive glycaemic control. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000;84:1097-102.
O'Shea WF, Ciuffreda KJ, Fisher S, et al. Relation between distance heterophoria and tonic vergence. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1988;65:787-93.
Rosenfield M, Ciuffreda KJ, Hung GK, et al. Tonic accommodation: a review. I. Basic aspects. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1993;13:266-84.
Ostadimoghaddam H, Hashemi H, Nabovati P, et al. The distribution of near point of convergence and its association with age, gender and refractive error: a population-based study. Clin Exp Optom. 2017;100:255-9.
Gall R, Wick B, Bedell H. Vergence facility: establishing clinical utility. Optom Vis Sci. 1998;75:731-42.
Elkholy SH, Hosny HM, Shalaby NM, et al. Blink reflex in type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2014;31:552-5.
Mays LE, Porter JD, Gamlin PD, et al. Neural control of vergence eye movements: neurons encoding vergence velocity. J Neurophysiol. 1986;56:1007-21.
Quaid P, Simpson T. Association between reading speed, cycloplegic refractive error, and oculomotor function in reading disabled children versus controls. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013;251:169-87.
Zheng F, Hou F, Chen R, et al. Investigation of the relationship between subjective symptoms of visual fatigue and visual functions. Front Neurosci. 2021;15:686740. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2021.686740
Soriano Pina D, Orduna-Hospital E, López-de-la-Fuente C. Analysis of the vergence facility test using different prismatic dioptric powers. Clin Exp Optom. 2021;7:1-7.