Sühan Tomaç1. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Mustafa Kemal University Faculty of Medicine, Hatay, Turkey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate whether the positive prism test response is due to the presence of a suppression scotoma or the absence of bifoveolar fixation. METHODS: Fifty-one subjects with esotropia (microtropia, small-, moderate- or large-angle esotropia), and 22 subjects with nonstrabismic anisometropic amblyopia were examined. The prism test was performed by using base-out prisms of two different powers (4-PD and 30-PD), and base-in prism of 20-PD, as well as base-down prism of 10-PD for each subject. RESULTS: All the subjects with esotropia showed a positive prism test response, whereas all the subjects with nonstrabismic anisometropic amblyopia had a negative prism test response. All the esotropic subjects showed positive response to all magnitudes and positions of the prisms tested. CONCLUSIONS: The positive response to the prism test does not indicate suppression scotoma in subjects with microtropia and small-angle esotropia because all the esotropic subjects showed the positive response regardless of the amount of deviation or the sensorial adaptation mechanisms. Also, the positive response, seen in the esotropic subjects, did not alter to negative by using the prisms of different powers and directions.
PURPOSE: To investigate whether the positive prism test response is due to the presence of a suppression scotoma or the absence of bifoveolar fixation. METHODS: Fifty-one subjects with esotropia (microtropia, small-, moderate- or large-angle esotropia), and 22 subjects with nonstrabismic anisometropic amblyopia were examined. The prism test was performed by using base-out prisms of two different powers (4-PD and 30-PD), and base-in prism of 20-PD, as well as base-down prism of 10-PD for each subject. RESULTS: All the subjects with esotropia showed a positive prism test response, whereas all the subjects with nonstrabismic anisometropic amblyopia had a negative prism test response. All the esotropic subjects showed positive response to all magnitudes and positions of the prisms tested. CONCLUSIONS: The positive response to the prism test does not indicate suppression scotoma in subjects with microtropia and small-angle esotropia because all the esotropic subjects showed the positive response regardless of the amount of deviation or the sensorial adaptation mechanisms. Also, the positive response, seen in the esotropic subjects, did not alter to negative by using the prisms of different powers and directions.