The vertical monitor position for presbyopic computer users with progressive lenses: how to reach clear vision and comfortable head posture

BCLA CLEAR Presbyopia: Evaluation and diagnosis

It is important to be able to measure the range of clear focus in clinical practice to advise on presbyopia correction techniques and to optimise the correction power. Both subjective and objective techniques are necessary: subjective techniques (such as patient reported outcome questionnaires and defocus curves) assess the impact of presbyopia on a patient and how the combination of residual objective accommodation and their natural DoF work for them; objective techniques (such as autorefraction, corneal topography and lens imaging) allow the clinician to understand how well a technique is working optically and whether it is the right choice or how adjustments can be made to optimise performance. Techniques to assess visual performance and adverse effects must be carefully conducted to gain a reliable end-point, considering the target size, contrast and illumination. Objective techniques are generally more reliable, can help to explain unexpected subjective results and imaging can be a powerful communication tool with patients. A clear diagnosis, excluding factors such as binocular vision issues or digital eye strain that can also cause similar symptoms, is critical for the patient to understand and adapt to presbyopia. Some corrective options are more permanent, such as implanted inlays / intraocular lenses or laser refractive surgery, so the optics can be trialled with contact lenses in advance (including differences between the eyes) to better communicate with the patient how the optics will work for them so they can make an informed choice.

BCLA CLEAR Presbyopia: Management with contact lenses and spectacles

This paper seeks to outline the history, market situation, clinical management and product performance related to the correction of presbyopia with both contact lenses and spectacles. The history of the development of various optical forms of presbyopic correction are reviewed, and an overview is presented of the current market status of contact lenses and spectacles. Clinical considerations in the fitting and aftercare of presbyopic contact lens and spectacle lens wearers are presented, with general recommendations for best practice. Current options for contact lens correction of presbyopia include soft simultaneous, rigid translating and rigid simultaneous designs, in addition to monovision. Spectacle options include single vision lenses, bifocal lenses and a range of progressive addition lenses. The comparative performance of both contact lens and spectacle lens options is presented. With a significant proportion of the global population now being presbyopic, this overview is particularly timely and is designed to act as a guide for researchers, industry and eyecare practitioners alike.

Analysis of real-world visual ergonomics at the visual display unit

INTRODUCTION

In this interventional study, the ergonomic workplace set-up and the impact of character size on subjectively estimated working productivity and computer vision syndrome (CVS) were evaluated in the field.

METHODS

The number of displays and their size, resolution, surface structure, position in the room and relation to the eye were evaluated for 152 units. CVS was assessed using the CVS-Questionnaire. Habitually used character size for an uppercase E was recorded and compared to the ISO 9241-303:2011, national standards (e.g., ANSI/HFES 100-2007) and national guidelines (e.g., German DGUV Information 215-410). In case of failure to comply with these standards, character size was increased to 22 angular minutes to reach the recommended ranges. Reasons for returning to former or smaller character sizes were recorded, and subjectively perceived changes in productivity were estimated by the participants using a visual analogue scale before and 2 weeks after the intervention using a questionnaire.

RESULTS

The average visual display unit consisted of two non-glare (matt) 24″ widescreen monitors that were located approximately 73 cm (primary) and 76 cm (secondary) from the eyes. The mean (SD) habitually set character size was 14.29 angular minutes (3.53) and therefore both statistically and clinically significantly too small compared with ISO 9241-303:2011 (p < 0.001). Increasing the character size to 22 angular minutes produced a 26% reduction in subjectively rated productivity (p < 0.001). No significant correlation between character size and symptoms of CVS was demonstrated.

CONCLUSIONS

In the workplaces investigated, recommendations for character size were not adhered to. This resulted in a reduction in productivity and was not compatible with some of the work requirements, for example, obtaining a broad overview of a spreadsheet.

Computer vision syndrome-related symptoms in presbyopic computer workers

PURPOSE

To evaluate the prevalence of computer vision syndrome (CVS)-related symptoms in a presbyopic population using the computer as the main work tool, as well as the relationship of CVS with the electronic device use habits and the ergonomic factors.

METHODS

A sample of 198 presbyopic participants (aged 45-65 years) who regularly work with a computer completed a customised questionnaire divided into: general demographics, optical correction commonly used and for work, habits of electronic devices use, ergonomic conditions during the working hours and CVS-related symptoms during work performance. A total of 10 CVS-related symptoms were questioned indicating the severity with which they occurred (0-4) and the median total symptom score (MTSS) was calculated as the sum of the symptoms.

RESULTS

The MTSS in this presbyopic population is 7 ± 5 symptoms. The most common symptoms reported by participants are dry eyes, tired eyes and difficulties in refocusing. MTSS is higher in women (p < 0.05), in laptop computer users (p < 0.05) and in teleworkers compared to office workers (p < 0.05). Regarding ergonomic conditions, MTSS is higher in participants who do not take breaks while working (p < 0.05), who have an inadequately lighting in the workspace (p < 0.05) and in the participants reporting neck (p < 0.01) or back pain (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

There is a relationship between CVS-related symptoms, the use of electronic devices and the ergonomic factors, which indicates the importance of adapting workplaces, especially for home-based teleworkers, and following basic visual ergonomics rules.

Computer vision syndrome in presbyopic digital device workers and progressive lens design

PURPOSE

To estimate the prevalence of computer vision syndrome (CVS) in presbyopic digital device workers using two ophthalmic progressive lens designs during the working day, and to analyse the association of CVS with sociodemographic, occupational, digital device exposure and refractive factors.

METHODS

This time series, quasi-experimental design study included 69 presbyopic digital device workers (age range: 46-69 years; mean ± SD = 54.7 ± 5.0). All used desktop computers at their workplace. Progressive addition lenses (PALs) and occupational lenses were used for three months each. CVS was measured with the CVS-Q^© questionnaire before intervention (baseline) and at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months after wearing the lenses. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to identify the factors that were associated with an improved CVS-Q^© score.

RESULTS

37.7% of the subjects were female and 78.3% were ametropes; 65.2% had advanced presbyopia. 56.2% used digital devices at work >6 h day^-1 . The prevalence of CVS at baseline, after wearing PALs for three months and after three months of occupational lens wear was 68.1%, 33.3% and 18.8%, respectively. The mean CVS-Q^© score was lower with occupational lenses than with PALs (p = 0.001). 40.6% of the digital device workers improved their CVS-Q^© score ≥2 points with the occupational lenses. Ametropes were less likely than emmetropes to improve with occupational lenses (OR = 0.27, p = 0.05). 89.8% of the sample workers were satisfied or very satisfied with the occupational lenses and 71% were similarly satisfied with the PALs. 73.9% chose the occupational lenses as their first choice of lens for digital device use, compared with 17.4% for PALs.

CONCLUSIONS

Computer vision syndrome is reduced in presbyopic desktop computer workers wearing occupational lenses compared with PALs, especially in emmetropes.

Presbyopia: Effectiveness of correction strategies

Presbyopia is a global problem affecting over a billion people worldwide. The prevalence of unmanaged presbyopia is as high as 50% of those over 50 years of age in developing world populations, due to a lack of awareness and accessibility to affordable treatment, and is even as high as 34% in developed countries. Definitions of presbyopia are inconsistent and varied, so we propose a redefinition that states "presbyopia occurs when the physiologically normal age-related reduction in the eye's focusing range reaches a point, when optimally corrected for distance vision, that the clarity of vision at near is insufficient to satisfy an individual's requirements". Strategies for correcting presbyopia include separate optical devices located in front of the visual system (reading glasses) or a change in the direction of gaze to view through optical zones of different optical powers (bifocal, trifocal or progressive addition spectacle lenses), monovision (with contact lenses, intraocular lenses, laser refractive surgery and corneal collagen shrinkage), simultaneous images (with contact lenses, intraocular lenses and corneal inlays), pinhole depth of focus expansion (with intraocular lenses, corneal inlays and pharmaceuticals), crystalline lens softening (with lasers or pharmaceuticals) or restored dynamics (with 'accommodating' intraocular lenses, scleral expansion techniques and ciliary muscle electrostimulation); these strategies may be applied differently to the two eyes to optimise the range of clear focus for an individual's task requirements and minimise adverse visual effects. However, none fully overcome presbyopia in all patients. While the restoration of natural accommodation or an equivalent remains elusive, guidance is given on presbyopic correction evaluation techniques.

Optical correction of refractive error for preventing and treating eye symptoms in computer users

BACKGROUND

Computer users frequently complain about problems with seeing and functioning of the eyes. Asthenopia is a term generally used to describe symptoms related to (prolonged) use of the eyes like ocular fatigue, headache, pain or aching around the eyes, and burning and itchiness of the eyelids. The prevalence of asthenopia during or after work on a computer ranges from 46.3% to 68.5%. Uncorrected or under-corrected refractive error can contribute to the development of asthenopia. A refractive error is an error in the focusing of light by the eye and can lead to reduced visual acuity. There are various possibilities for optical correction of refractive errors including eyeglasses, contact lenses and refractive surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the evidence on the effectiveness, safety and applicability of optical correction of refractive error for reducing and preventing eye symptoms in computer users.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; Embase; Web of Science; and OSH update, all to 20 December 2017. Additionally, we searched trial registries and checked references of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials of interventions evaluating optical correction for computer workers with refractive error for preventing or treating asthenopia and their effect on health related quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. Where appropriate, we combined studies in a meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies with 381 participants. Three were parallel group RCTs, three were cross-over RCTs and two were quasi-randomised cross-over trials. All studies evaluated eyeglasses, there were no studies that evaluated contact lenses or surgery. Seven studies evaluated computer glasses with at least one focal area for the distance of the computer screen with or without additional focal areas in presbyopic persons. Six studies compared computer glasses to other types of glasses; and one study compared them to an ergonomic workplace assessment. The eighth study compared optimal correction of refractive error with the actual spectacle correction in use. Two studies evaluated computer glasses in persons with asthenopia but for the others the glasses were offered to all workers regardless of symptoms. The risk of bias was unclear in five, high in two and low in one study. Asthenopia was measured as eyestrain or a summary score of symptoms but there were no studies on health-related quality of life. Adverse events were measured as headache, nausea or dizziness. Median asthenopia scores at baseline were about 30% of the maximum possible score.Progressive computer glasses versus monofocal glassesOne study found no considerable difference in asthenopia between various progressive computer glasses and monofocal computer glasses after one-year follow-up (mean difference (MD) change scores 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.0 to 5.4 on a 100 mm VAS scale, low quality evidence). For headache the results were in favour of progressive glasses.Progressive computer glasses with an intermediate focus in the upper part of the glasses versus other glassesIn two studies progressive computer glasses with intermediate focus led to a small decrease in asthenopia symptoms (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.23, low-quality evidence) but not in headache score in the short-term compared to general purpose progressive glasses. There were similar small decreases in dizziness. At medium term follow-up, in one study the effect size was not statistically significant (SMD -0.64, 95% CI -1.40 to 0.12). The study did not assess adverse events.Another study found no considerable difference in asthenopia between progressive computer glasses and monofocal computer glasses after one-year follow-up (MD change scores 1.44, 95% CI -6.95 to 9.83 on a 100 mm VAS scale, very low quality evidence). For headache the results were inconsistent.Progressive computer glasses with far-distance focus in the upper part of the glasses versus other glassesOne study found no considerable difference in number of persons with asthenopia between progressive computer glasses with far-distance focus and bifocal computer glasses after four weeks' follow-up (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.50, very low quality evidence). The number of persons with headache, nausea and dizziness was also not different between groups.Another study found no considerable difference in asthenopia between progressive computer glasses with far-distance focus and monofocal computer glasses after one-year follow-up (MD change scores -1.79, 95% CI -11.60 to 8.02 on a 100 mm VAS scale, very low quality evidence). The effects on headaches were inconsistent.One study found no difference between progressive far-distance focus computer glasses and trifocal glasses in effect on eyestrain severity (MD -0.50, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.07, very low quality evidence) or on eyestrain frequency (MD -0.75, 95% CI -1.61 to 0.11, very low quality evidence).Progressive computer glasses versus ergonomic assessment with habitual (computer) glassesOne study found that computer glasses optimised for individual needs reduced asthenopia sum score more than an ergonomic assessment and habitual (computer) glasses (MD -8.9, 95% CI -16.47 to -1.33, scale 0 to 140, very low quality evidence) but there was no effect on the frequency of eyestrain (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.11, very low quality evidence).We rated the quality of the evidence as low or very low due to risk of bias in the included studies, inconsistency in the results and imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low to very low quality evidence that providing computer users with progressive computer glasses does not lead to a considerable decrease in problems with the eyes or headaches compared to other computer glasses. Progressive computer glasses might be slightly better than progressive glasses for daily use in the short term but not in the intermediate term and there is no data on long-term follow-up. The quality of the evidence is low or very low and therefore we are uncertain about this conclusion. Larger studies with several hundreds of participants are needed with proper randomisation, validated outcome measurement methods, and longer follow-up of at least one year to improve the quality of the evidence.