Stereoacuity in children with anisometropic amblyopia
To determine factors associated with pretreatment and posttreatment stereoacuity in subjects with moderate anisometropic amblyopia.
Data for subjects enrolled in seven studies conducted by the Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group were pooled. The sample included 633 subjects aged 3 to <18 years with anisometropic amblyopia, no heterotropia observed by cover test, and baseline amblyopic eye acuity of 20/100 or better. A subset included 248 subjects who were treated with patching or Bangerter filters and had stereoacuity testing at both the baseline and outcome examinations. Multivariate regression models identified factors associated with baseline stereoacuity and with outcome stereoacuity as measured by the Randot Preschool Stereoacuity test.
Better baseline stereoacuity was associated with better baseline amblyopic eye acuity (P < 0.001), less anisometropia (P = 0.03), and anisometropia due to astigmatism alone (P < 0.001). Better outcome stereoacuity was associated with better baseline stereoacuity (P < 0.001) and better amblyopic eye acuity at outcome (P < 0.001). Among 48 subjects whose amblyopic eye visual acuity at outcome was 20/25 or better and within one line of the fellow eye, stereoacuity was worse than that of children with normal vision of the same age.
In children with anisometropic amblyopia of 20/40 to 20/100 inclusive, better posttreatment stereoacuity is associated with better baseline stereoacuity and better posttreatment amblyopic eye acuity. Even if their visual acuity deficit resolves, many children with anisometropic amblyopia have stereoacuity worse than that of nonamblyopic children of the same age.
Available from: Rebecca Camilleri
- "Impairments range from a reduction of visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity function (CSF) and Vernier acuity, to abnormal spatial interactions (Polat et al., 1997; Levi et al., 2002) or deficiencies in stereopsis (Wallace et al., 2011). It is believed to be due to an anomalous pattern of functional connectivity within the primary visual cortex, in particular of neurons selective for orientation and spatial frequency (Polat, 1999), thus causing abnormal processing of visual information coming from one or both eyes (but typically only one eye is involved). "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Amblyopia is a visual disorder due to an abnormal pattern of functional connectivity of the visual cortex and characterized by several visual deficits of spatial vision including impairments of visual acuity (VA) and of the contrast sensitivity function (CSF). Despite being a developmental disorder caused by reduced visual stimulation during early life (critical period), several studies have shown that extensive visual perceptual training can improve VA and CSF in people with amblyopia even in adulthood. With the present study we assessed whether a much shorter perceptual training regime, in association with high-frequency transcranial electrical stimulation (hf-tRNS), was able to improve visual functions in a group of adult participants with amblyopia. Results show that, in comparison with previous studies where a large number sessions with a similar training regime were used (Polat et al., 2004), here just eight sessions of training in contrast detection under lateral masking conditions combined with hf-tRNS, were able to substantially improve VA and CSF in adults with amblyopia.
Frontiers in Psychology 12/2014; 5. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01402 · 2.80 Impact Factor
Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology 10/2012; 47(5):391-3. DOI:10.1016/j.jcjo.2012.08.009 · 1.33 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: To evaluate the relationship of anisometropia with unilateral amblyopia, interocular acuity difference (IAD), and stereoacuity among Head Start preschoolers using both clinical notation and vector notation analyses. DESIGN: Multicenter, cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Three- to 5-year-old participants in the Vision in Preschoolers (VIP) study (n = 4040). METHODS: Secondary analysis of VIP data from participants who underwent comprehensive eye examinations, including monocular visual acuity testing, stereoacuity testing, and cycloplegic refraction. Visual acuity was retested with full cycloplegic correction when retest criteria were met. Unilateral amblyopia was defined as IAD of 2 lines or more in logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) units. Anisometropia was defined as a 0.25-diopter (D) or more difference in spherical equivalent (SE) or in cylinder power and 2 approaches using power vector notation. The percentage with unilateral amblyopia, mean IAD, and mean stereoacuity were compared between anisometropic and isometropic children. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The percentage with unilateral amblyopia, mean IAD, and mean stereoacuity. RESULTS: Compared with isometropic children, anisometropic children had a higher percentage of unilateral amblyopia (8% vs. 2%), larger mean IAD (0.07 vs. 0.05 logMAR), and worse mean stereoacuity (145 vs. 117 arc sec; all P<0.0001). Larger amounts of anisometropia were associated with higher percentages of unilateral amblyopia, larger IAD, and worse stereoacuity (P<0.001 for trend). The percentage of unilateral amblyopia increased significantly with SE anisometropia of more than 0.5 D, cylindrical anisometropia of more than 0.25 D, vertical and horizontal meridian (J0) or oblique meridian (J45) of more than 0.125 D, or vector dioptric distance of more than 0.35 D (all P<0.001). Vector dioptric distance had greater ability to detect unilateral amblyopia than cylinder, SE, J0, or J45 (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The presence and amount of anisometropia were associated with the presence of unilateral amblyopia, larger IAD, and worse stereoacuity. The threshold level of anisometropia at which unilateral amblyopia became significant was lower than current guidelines. Vector dioptric distance is more accurate than spherical equivalent anisometropia or cylindrical anisometropia in identifying preschoolers with unilateral amblyopia. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.
Ophthalmology 11/2012; 120(3). DOI:10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.08.014 · 6.14 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.