Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

R Megías

Publications and source records attributed to R Megías.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

General binocular disorders: prevalence in a clinic population.

The purpose of this paper was to study the prevalence of nonstrabismic accommodative and binocular dysfunctions in a clinical population. We examined 265 symptomatic patients who were chosen from an optometric clinic. We performed several tests to diagnose any form of refractive, accommodative or binocular dysfunction. Of the 265 subjects examined, 59 patients (22.3%) had some form of accommodative or binocular dysfunction and required not just the correction of the refractive error but a specific treatment for each of the problems diagnosed. The remaining subjects were classed as having refractive anomalies. The frequency of binocular dysfunctions was 12.9%, and 9.4% for accommodative anomalies. Convergence excess (4.5%) was more prevalent than convergence insufficiency (0.8%) and accommodative excess (6.4%) more prevalent than accommodative insufficiency (3%).

Accommodation, Ocular↗

The relation between accommodative facility and general binocular dysfunction.

This study was designed to evaluate the relation between accommodative facility and accommodative and binocular dysfunctions. We determined whether failure to achieve 8 cycles per minute of binocular accommodative facility or 11 cycles per minute of monocular accommodative facility tends to be associated with these dysfunctions. Forty eight subjects, ages 10-30 years were examined and classified into four groups: 13 subjects with accommodative dysfunctions, 11 patients with binocular dysfunctions, 12 subjects with accommodative and binocular dysfunctions and 12 control subjects with refractive errors but no accommodative or binocular anomalies. Monocular and binocular accommodative facility was conducted using +/- 2.00 D flip lenses. In general, statistical analysis indicates that subjects with binocular and accommodative (ocular motor) anomalies performed significantly poorer than subjects of normal group on monocular and binocular facility tests. Monocular accommodative facility results showed more information about the dysfunction of the patient compared with the results of the binocular accommodative facility. In general data supported a relation between reduced accommodative facility and a general binocular dysfunction (accommodative or binocular) which demonstrates the importance of the accommodative facility test in diagnosing an accommodative or binocular anomaly.

Accommodation, Ocular↗