Habitual excessive accommodation in children: clinical and epidemiological analysis and risk factors

Purpose of the study — to identify the clinical and epidemiological features of habitual excessive accommodation (HEA) in children and to determine the key risk factors for its development and progression.

Materials and methods. A retrospective analysis of 5250 outpatient medical histories of children aged 6–17 (mean 11.2 ± 2.9 yrs), including 2865 girls (54.6 %) and 2385 (45.4 %) boys, with a diagnosis of HEA made in City Clinical Outpatient Clinic No. 29 in 2022–2024 was conducted. The main criterion for making the diagnosis was the difference between the manifest and cycloplegic refraction > 0.5 D.

Results. HEA development was noted mainly at the age of 10–13 years. The frequency of HEA detection over the three-year observation period increased from 27.6 to 39.0 %. The main symptoms of this condition are asthenopia, headaches, and decreased distance vision. Significant risk factors included heredity, perinatal damage to the central nervous system, frequent acute respiratory viral infections, and long-term use of gadgets. In 31.5 % of children, the development of low myopia was noted during the observation period.

Conclusion. HEA is a common functional disorder in school-age children. The identified risk factors must be taken into account in early diagnosis and prevention, especially in patients with a hereditary burden and unfavorable environmental conditions.

1. Holden BA, Fricke TR, Wilson DA, et al. Global prevalence of myopia and high myopia and temporal trends from 2000 through 2050. Ophthalmology. 2016; 123 (5): 1036–1042. Epub 2016 Feb 11. PMID: 26875007. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.01.006

2. Yu M, Hu Y, Han M, et al. Global risk factor analysis of myopia onset in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS One. 2023; 18 (9): e0291470. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291470

3. Baalalin S.V., Trufanova L.P. Ophthalmic hypertension syndrome of accommodation overstrain as a risk factor for myopia progression. National Journal of Glaucoma. 2019; 18 (2): 29–37 (In Russ.). doi:org/10.21516/njg2019-18-2-29-37

4. Tarutta E.P., Proskurina O.V., Tararsova N.A., Ibatulin R.A., Kovychev A.S. Predictors of myopia as a starting point for initiating active measures for its prevention. Russian ophthalmological journal. 2018; 11 (3): 107–12 (In Russ.). doi:org/10.21516/rofj2018-11-3-107-112

5. Myagkov A.V., Karamyshev P.B. On the influence of accommodation and accommodative anomalies on the process of myopia formation and progression (a literature review). The Eye. 2020; 22 (1): 34–43 (In Russ.). doi:org/10.21516/theeye2020-22-1-34-43

6. Tarutta E.P., Tarasova N.A. Criteria for diagnosing habitual excessive accommodation tension based on subjective and objective parameters of accommodation. Russian pediatric ophthalmology. 2013; 1: 34–8 (In Russ.). doi:org/10.21516/rpo2013-1-34-38

7. Morozova T.A., Pikusova S.M. Habitual excessive accommodation tension: current state of the problem. Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences. 2025; 79 (5): 453–62 (In Russ.). doi:org/10.15690/vramn17955

8. Brzheskiy V.V., Zaytsev N.A. Some aspects of prescribing therapeutic measures for children with myopia and habitual excessive accommodation tension in the practice of a polyclinic ophthalmologist. The Eye. 2021; 23 (3): 27–37 (In Russ.). doi:org/10.21516/theeye2021-23-3-27-37

9. Trufanova L.P., Baalalin S.V. Variants of habitual excessive accommodation tension, accommodative weakness, and intraocular pressure in myopia. Ophthalmology. 2018; 15 (2S): 179–82 (In Russ.). doi:org/10.21516/oft2018-15-2S-179-182

10. Kang M, Jan C, Li S, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of pseudomyopia in a Chinese children population: the Anyang Childhood Eye Study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2021; 105 (9): 1216–21. doi: 10.1136/bjo-2021-123456

11. Garcia-Montero M, Felipe-Marquez G, Arriola-Villalobos P, Garzon N. Vision (Basel). 2022 Mar 4; 6 (1): 17. doi: 10.3390/vision6010017

12. Sun W, Yu M, Wu J, et al. Pseudomyopia as an independent risk factor for myopia onset: a prospective cohort study among school-aged children. Br J Ophthalmol. 2024; 108 (6): 873–8. doi: 10.1136/bjo-2023-326710

13. Liu Y, Jianmin Shang, Yuliang Wang, et al. Refractive and ocular biometric characteristics of non-myopic and pseudomyopic eyes in mild hyperopic Chinese children aged 3–12 years. Heliyon. 2024 July; 15, 10 (13). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33987

14. Form FSN No. 12 “Information on the number of diseases registered in patients living in the service area of a medical organization” for 2024 (In Russ).

15. Sitka M.M., Bodrova S.G., Tikhonova O.I., et al. Evaluation of the impact of changes in eye parameters in children with initial emmetropia on the development of myopia. Ophthalmology in Russia. 2020; 17 (2): 263–8 (In Russ.). doi:org/10.21516/oft2020-17-2-263-268

16. Cacho-Martinez P, Canto-Cerdan M, Carbonell-Bonete S, Garcia-Munoz A. Characterization of visual symptomatology associated with refractive, accommodative, and binocular anomalies. Journal of Ophthalmology. 2015; 2015: 895803. doi: 10.1155/2015/895803

17. Shukla Y. Accommodative anomalies in children. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2020; 68 (8): 1520–5. doi: 10.4103/ijo.2020.1520