PURPOSE: To compare the clinical characteristics of patients with familial and nonfamilial acquired accommodative esotropia. METHODS: We recruited 48 patients from 33 families with acquired accommodative esotropia (an inward deviation of the eyes of 10 PD or more, a hypermetropia greater than or equal to +1.50 D, and an onset of esotropia at, or later than, 1 year of age). Our control group consisted of 20 patients with no known family history. Spherical error of refraction, stereoacuity, and need for strabismus surgery were determined and the 2 groups were compared. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found between the spherical equivalent error of refraction in familial cases (mean = +4.50 OD, +4.63 OS; range = +1.50 to +10.30 OD, +2.00 to +9.38 OS) versus those with nonfamilial disease (mean = +4.93 OD, +5.02 OS; range = +2.50 to +11.00 OD, +2.50 to +10.90 OS) (P =.47 OD; P =.47 OS). There also was no difference between the percentage of patients with familial disease who had some degree of stereoacuity (58%) and those without a family history (59%) (P > .99). Patients with familial acquired accommodative esotropia did not require more surgical interventions (26%) than those with nonfamilial acquired accommodative esotropia (30%) (P = .79). CONCLUSIONS: The general clinical characteristics of familial and nonfamilial acquired accommodative esotropia are very similar.
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical characteristics of patients with familial and nonfamilial acquired accommodative esotropia. METHODS: We recruited 48 patients from 33 families with acquired accommodative esotropia (an inward deviation of the eyes of 10 PD or more, a hypermetropia greater than or equal to +1.50 D, and an onset of esotropia at, or later than, 1 year of age). Our control group consisted of 20 patients with no known family history. Spherical error of refraction, stereoacuity, and need for strabismus surgery were determined and the 2 groups were compared. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found between the spherical equivalent error of refraction in familial cases (mean = +4.50 OD, +4.63 OS; range = +1.50 to +10.30 OD, +2.00 to +9.38 OS) versus those with nonfamilial disease (mean = +4.93 OD, +5.02 OS; range = +2.50 to +11.00 OD, +2.50 to +10.90 OS) (P =.47 OD; P =.47 OS). There also was no difference between the percentage of patients with familial disease who had some degree of stereoacuity (58%) and those without a family history (59%) (P > .99). Patients with familial acquired accommodative esotropia did not require more surgical interventions (26%) than those with nonfamilial acquired accommodative esotropia (30%) (P = .79). CONCLUSIONS: The general clinical characteristics of familial and nonfamilial acquired accommodative esotropia are very similar.