雙眼視覺機能異常的人群分布情況

(圖片來源https://isso.columbia.edu/content/statistics)


若眼睛的健康情況良好，沒有斜視與弱視，且經過適當的屈光矯正之後，仍然出現模糊、眼睛疲勞甚至雙重影像，就有可能是眼睛的視覺功能出現異常。

可分類為三種
調節異常-眼睛調焦功能出現異常
聚散異常-雙眼視軸對齊功能出現異常
眼動異常-物體動態移動時追視功能出現異常

在網路上搜尋最近的幾篇論文，可以了解這些異常在人群當中大致的分布情形。
因為調查採計的標準與對象有許多不同，結果差異也很大，
但大致上約佔人口當中的二到三成。

1.
2002的研究，265位有症狀的患者，其中59位 (22.3%)具有視覺功能異常

細分的話

調節功能異常 9.4%

-accommodative excess (6.4%)

-accommodative insufficiency (3%)

聚散功能異常 12.9%

-Convergence excess (4.5%)

-convergence insufficiency (0.8%)


2.
2001的研究，1679位18~38位民眾，高達 56.2% 呈現雙眼視覺功能異常症狀

調節失常61.4%

聚散失常38.6%

症狀者當中最常見的是Accommodation insufficiency 11.4%


3.
1997的研究，65位有大量視覺工作需求的大學生，32.3% 顯示一般的雙眼視機能失常

10.8% accommodative excess

7.7% convergence insufficiency with accommodative excess.

6.2% accommodative insufficiency.

3.1% had basic exophoria

1.5% Convergence excess with accommodative insufficiency,

1.5%basic esophoria

1.5%fusional vergence dysfunction

4.

作者系統性回顧1986至2009的文獻，分布情況有很大的差距，特別是調節不足(2-61.7%)及內聚不足(2.25-33%)，因為對象及採用的標準不同而異。

四篇文獻如下

1.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1475-1313.2001.00540.x General binocular disorders: prevalence in a clinic population

Francisco Lara Pilar Cacho Ángel García Ramón Megías

First published: 23 August 2002 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1475-1313.2001.00540.x Cited by: 54
ePDFPDFTOOLS SHARE

Summary

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%).



2.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12009-001-0027-8

Annals of Ophthalmology

September 2001, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 205–208 | Cite as

Prevalence of general dysfunctions in binocular vision

Authors

Authors and affiliations

Robert Montés-Micó

Abstract

A 1-year clinical trial to determine the prevalence of general dysfunctions in binocular vision in a nonpresbyopic population was conducted in 1679 subjects aged 18 to 38 years. A thorough eye examination included binocular vision testing. A high prevalence of binocular vision dysfunctions was found. Of the subjects, 56.2% presented symptoms of binocular dysfunctions, 61.4% with accommodation disorders and 38.6% vergence disorders. Accommodation insufficiency was most prevalent among those with symptoms (11.4%).

3.

https://europepmc.org/abstract/med/9097328

Prevalence of general binocular dysfunctions in a population of university students.

(PMID:9097328)

Porcar E , Martinez-Palomera A

Optometry and Vision Science : Official Publication of the American Academy of Optometry [01 Feb 1997, 74(2):111-113]

Type: Journal Article

Abstract

PURPOSE: Although some authors report that the prevalence of general binocular dysfunctions (nonstrabismic) for nonpresbyopes in the clinical population is greater than any condition except refractive error, limited research is available to support this statement. This clinical study determined the presence and clinical implications of these conditions in a population of university students with heavy near visual demands. METHODS: From a group of second year students who were given a thorough eye examination, 65 students were selected. The criteria for selection were the absence of significant uncorrected refractive error, healthy eyes, and no strabismus or amblyopia. RESULTS: 32.3% of the subjects showed general binocular dysfunctions. In 10.8% of the cases, accommodative excess was present. 7.7% had convergence insufficiency with accommodative excess. 6.2% showed accommodative insufficiency. 3.1% had basic exophoria. Convergence excess with accommodative insufficiency, basic esophoria, and fusional vergence dysfunction all showed the same prevalence of 1.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Accommodative and nonstrabismic binocular vision problems are prevalent in this population. Accommodative excess is the most common condition. Because these dysfunctions may have a negative effect on performance, appropriate vision evaluation for this population is important.


4.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1888429610700285

Review Do we really know the prevalence of accomodative and nonstrabismic binocular dysfunctions?

Author links open overlay panelPilarCacho-MartínezaÁngelGarcía-MuñozaMaría TeresaRuiz-Canterob

Show more

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1888-4296(10)70028-5

Abstract

Purpose
To determine the scientific evidence about the prevalence of accommodative and nonstrabismic binocular anomalies.

Methods
We carried out a systematic review of studies published between 1986 and 2009, analysing the MEDLINE, CINAHL, FRANCIS and PsycINFO databases. We considered admitting those papers related to prevalence in paediatric and adult populations. We identified 660 articles and 10 papers met the inclusion criteria.

Results
There is a wide range of prevalence, particularly for accommodative insufficiency (2–61,7 %) and convergence insufficiency (2.25–33 %). More studies are available for children (7) compared with adults (3). Most of studies examine clinical population (5 studies) with 3 assessed at schools and 1 at University with samples that vary from 65 to 2048 patients. There is great variability regarding the number of diagnostic signs ranging from 1 to 5 clinical signs. We found a relation between the number of clinical signs used and prevalence values for convergence insufficiency although this relationship cannot be confirmed for other conditions.

Conclusion

There is a lack of proper epidemiological studies about the prevalence of accommodative and nonstrabismic binocular anomalies. Studies reviewed examine consecutive or selected patients in clinical settings and schools but in any case they are randomized and representative of their populations with no data for general population. The wide discrepancies in prevalence figures are due to both sample population and the lack of uniformity in diagnostic criteria so that it makes difficult to compile results. Biases and limitations of reports determine that prevalence rates offered are only estimations from selected populations.