M Cleary1. 1. Orthoptic Department, Tennent Institute of Ophthalmology, Gartnavel General Hospital, Glasgow, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The study of occlusion efficacy in amblyopia has been hampered by the use of non-logMAR acuity tests and a failure to assess threshold acuity for both eyes. These issues are addressed in the current study which compares the effect of spectacles alone and spectacles in combination with occlusion, with the use of the logMAR crowded test. METHODS: Changes in uniocular and interocular acuity differences were compared for two age matched groups of previously untreated children with strabismic amblyopia: one compliant with spectacles only (n = 17, mean 6.2 (SD 2.5) years) and the other with spectacles and occlusion (n = 69, mean 5.1 (1) years) over a 1 year period. Changes in logMAR acuity were also analysed for a larger occluded group (n = 119) in response to successive 200 hour blocks of occlusion up to > or =1000 hours, in an attempt to isolate an optimal occlusion regime. RESULTS: Visual acuity improved for more of the amblyopic eyes of the occluded (74%) than the spectacles only group (59%), and only one child from the latter group deteriorated. Mean visual acuity improved for both eyes of both treatment groups, but the change was significantly larger for the strabismic eyes of the occluded group overall and within the first 6 month period (p <0. 05). Occlusion was only effective for the first 400 hours worn. Subsequent visual improvement was bilateral and symmetrical. CONCLUSION: Occlusion is more effective in the treatment of strabismic amblyopia than spectacles alone, and the effect is optimal within the first 6 months of wear. In terms of occlusion duration, maximal improvement occurs in response to 400 hours of occlusion wear or less, and to full time occlusion. Visual maturation continues, but is retarded for amblyopic eyes.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The study of occlusion efficacy in amblyopia has been hampered by the use of non-logMAR acuity tests and a failure to assess threshold acuity for both eyes. These issues are addressed in the current study which compares the effect of spectacles alone and spectacles in combination with occlusion, with the use of the logMAR crowded test. METHODS: Changes in uniocular and interocular acuity differences were compared for two age matched groups of previously untreated children with strabismic amblyopia: one compliant with spectacles only (n = 17, mean 6.2 (SD 2.5) years) and the other with spectacles and occlusion (n = 69, mean 5.1 (1) years) over a 1 year period. Changes in logMAR acuity were also analysed for a larger occluded group (n = 119) in response to successive 200 hour blocks of occlusion up to > or =1000 hours, in an attempt to isolate an optimal occlusion regime. RESULTS: Visual acuity improved for more of the amblyopic eyes of the occluded (74%) than the spectacles only group (59%), and only one child from the latter group deteriorated. Mean visual acuity improved for both eyes of both treatment groups, but the change was significantly larger for the strabismic eyes of the occluded group overall and within the first 6 month period (p <0. 05). Occlusion was only effective for the first 400 hours worn. Subsequent visual improvement was bilateral and symmetrical. CONCLUSION: Occlusion is more effective in the treatment of strabismic amblyopia than spectacles alone, and the effect is optimal within the first 6 months of wear. In terms of occlusion duration, maximal improvement occurs in response to 400 hours of occlusion wear or less, and to full time occlusion. Visual maturation continues, but is retarded for amblyopic eyes.