- 期刊
- OpenAccess
眼科“電腦終端機症候群”研究－對比敏感度及瞳孔反應
Study of the Ophthalmic VDT Syndrome-Contrast Sensitivity and Pupillary Response
摘要
Our previous study of VDT (visual display terminal) syndrome showed that visual fatigue-the major complaint of VDT syndrome-was caused by inadequate accommodation and gradual decrease of accommodative reponse in computer workers. The following investigation regarding contrast sensitivity, blurred vision and systemic symptoms in VDT syndrome was performed as a continuation to our previous work. By using Vistech contrast sensitivity measurement system, 46VDU operators and 20 age-matched controls were enrolled. There are more abnormal cases in VDU group (8.9% to 37.8%) in 6, 12 and 18 cycles/degree than in control group. Pupillary near response examined with infrared iriscoder revealed that in VDU group, average pupil area (18.01mm^2) was significantly smaller than in control group (26.78mm^2)(p＜0.05); after a near work loading with 4-diopter lens, 25cm distance, pupil area in VDU group decreased further to 10.66mm^2, and without recovery after 5 minutes (P＜0.05). In light response recorded with electronic pupillometer (green diode as stimulation source), amount of resonse in VDU group (42.44%) was larger than controls (37.00%) in early stage, there also existed significant difference between the two groups in residual constriction amount (54.56%＞41.91%, P＜0.05); the results after 4 months showed that amount of light response decreased profoundly in VDU group from 42.44% to 34.80% (P＜0.005). This finding was similar to our former results in which accommodative response decrease, accommodation fatigue and insufficiency occurred after long-term VDU work. Whether the contrast sensitivity results reflect the influence of VDT operation on retinal ganglion cell, firstly on P-cell and then gradually M-cell; or as in pupillary response, VDT work firstly caused parasympathetic stimulation and then sympathetic imbalance, do require further research to clarify.
關鍵字
無資料並列摘要
Our previous study of VDT (visual display terminal) syndrome showed that visual fatigue-the major complaint of VDT syndrome-was caused by inadequate accommodation and gradual decrease of accommodative reponse in computer workers. The following investigation regarding contrast sensitivity, blurred vision and systemic symptoms in VDT syndrome was performed as a continuation to our previous work. By using Vistech contrast sensitivity measurement system, 46VDU operators and 20 age-matched controls were enrolled. There are more abnormal cases in VDU group (8.9% to 37.8%) in 6, 12 and 18 cycles/degree than in control group. Pupillary near response examined with infrared iriscoder revealed that in VDU group, average pupil area (18.01mm^2) was significantly smaller than in control group (26.78mm^2)(p＜0.05); after a near work loading with 4-diopter lens, 25cm distance, pupil area in VDU group decreased further to 10.66mm^2, and without recovery after 5 minutes (P＜0.05). In light response recorded with electronic pupillometer (green diode as stimulation source), amount of resonse in VDU group (42.44%) was larger than controls (37.00%) in early stage, there also existed significant difference between the two groups in residual constriction amount (54.56%＞41.91%, P＜0.05); the results after 4 months showed that amount of light response decreased profoundly in VDU group from 42.44% to 34.80% (P＜0.005). This finding was similar to our former results in which accommodative response decrease, accommodation fatigue and insufficiency occurred after long-term VDU work. Whether the contrast sensitivity results reflect the influence of VDT operation on retinal ganglion cell, firstly on P-cell and then gradually M-cell; or as in pupillary response, VDT work firstly caused parasympathetic stimulation and then sympathetic imbalance, do require further research to clarify.