Purpose To explore the influence of myopia during different spectacle correction status on binocular vision function. Methods A total of 1446 myopic patients (2892 eyes) with different glasses‐wearing states, with a mean age of 22.38 ± 4.74 years, were randomly selected from the Corneal Refractive Department of Jinan Mingshui Eye Hospital between September 2023 and December 2024. Based on the difference between the mean self‐worn spectacle spherical equivalent (SE) and postcycloplegic refraction SE, the patients were classified into three groups: the spectacle overcorrection group: 178 cases (356 eyes); the spectacle full‐correction group: 594 cases (1188 eyes); and the spectacle undercorrection group: 674 cases (1348 eyes). All patients underwent routine ophthalmic examinations and accommodative functions (accommodative amplitude AMP, negative relative accommodation NRA, positive relative accommodation PRA, monocular accommodative facility MAF, binocular accommodative facility BAF, accommodative response BCC), and convergence functions (near‐horizontal phoria NLP and far‐horizontal phoria DLP). Accommodative convergence/accommodation (AC/A) ratio and near point of convergence (NPC) were detected, and all data were analyzed. Results The comparisons of postcycloplegic refraction spherical power and SE, spectacle and postcycloplegic refraction cylindrical power among the three groups revealed statistically significant differences (all p < 0.05). Comparisons of PRA and BAF values among the three groups unveiled statistically significant differences ( p < 0.05). Statistically significant differences were also observed in comparisons of NLP values ( p < 0.05). Accommodative dysfunction accounted for 52.98% of cases. Accommodative infacility (452 patients) emerged as the most prevalent subtype. Convergence dysfunction constituted 19.98% of abnormalities, with convergence insufficiency demonstrating the highest prevalence (200 patients). The comparison of different diagnostic types of visual function among the three patient groups unveiled statistically significant differences ( p < 0.05). DLP/NLP and spectacle sphere, spectacle SE, refraction sphere and refraction SE ( r = 0.062–0.081, p < 0.05); AC/A and spectacle sphere, spectacle SE, refraction sphere, and refraction cylinder and refraction SE ( r = 0.052 to 0.064, p < 0.05). PRA and spectacle sphere, spectacle SE ( r = 0.052, 0.054, p < 0.05). MAF/BAF positively correlated with refraction cylinder ( r = 0.07 to 0.099, p < 0.01). NRA and PRA were positively correlated with spectacle SE discrepancy ( r = 0.072, 0.129, p < 0.01). BAF and MAF were inversely correlated with spectacle SE discrepancy ( r = −0.067, −0.053, p < 0.05). AMP and multiple refractive parameters: spectacle sphere, spectacle SE, refraction sphere, and refraction SE ( r = −0.080–−0.093, p < 0.01). Conclusion The accuracy of spectacle correction influences accommodative and convergence functions in myopic patients. Precise prescriptions can improve visual quality and comfort.
Zhang et al. (Thu,) studied this question.