The session topics covered prevalence, progression and risk factors of myopia, mechanisms such as light exposure and visual pathways, optical and pharmacological methods of myopia control, genetics, clinical trial considerations, myopic eye shape and accommodation and binocularity.
Three more fascinating areas and/or pieces of research presented at IMC, and some bonus material.
This one hour lecture, delivered to final year QUT optometry students, describes a simplified two-system approach to BV diagnosis and management.
From a myopia control point of view, esophoria and accommodative lag are the key clinical red flags in assessing your patient’s visual efficiency, and thankfully both will usually respond positively to a near addition.
Kate describes near heterophoria to her patients as where their eyes aim in space – the posture of their vergence system – and esophoria is our key enemy in the myopia control battle.
Assessing horizontal fusional reserves at near gives you the measure of your patient’s stamina, or ‘petrol in the tank’ to be able to manage their phoria, or ‘posture’.
This blog retraces my personal journey into myopia control and explains why I believe that this is the most important development for optometry that has taken place during my career.
Given that a normal lag result is +0.50, I would generally prescribe an add which is the accommodative lag result subtracting 0.50, so the resulting final lag is within the normal range. For example, a lag of +2.00 results in a +1.50 Add; a lag of +1.50 results in a +1.00 Add. However, this formula may not work if:
Assessing accommodative function at near is a vital component of understanding the myopia profile of your patient. Myopic progression in children and adults can be influenced by binocular vision function.
