PURPOSE: To compare the effects of partial or full hyperopic optical correction on refractive development in children with accommodative esotropia. METHODS: Children with accommodative esotropia and hyperopia >3 D were enrolled in this prospective, nonrandomized study. All children underwent an ophthalmologic examination, including refraction, keratometry, and axial length. Subjects were divided into either full- or partial-correction groups according to their tolerance of the full hyperopic correction. Routine follow-up examinations were performed for at least 3 years. The main outcome measure was cycloplegic spherical equivalent at the end of the study period. RESULTS: A total of 120 children were enrolled. The mean cycloplegic spherical equivalent, corneal radius, and axial length were significantly (p < 0.05) different between the first and last visits in both groups. However, when all the measurements were adjusted for the age difference between groups, only the difference in axial length between the first and last visits was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Partial or full optical correction in age-adjusted cohorts with accommodative esotropia did not result in a significant change in refraction, keratometry, or axial length between the first and last visits. CONCLUSIONS: Partial or full optical correction of hyperopia had similar effects on refractive development of the eye in children with accommodative esotropia. Treatment of accommodative esotropia in children older than age 5 did not appear to impair refractive development. Copyright (c) 2010 American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: To compare the effects of partial or full hyperopic optical correction on refractive development in children with accommodative esotropia. METHODS:Children with accommodative esotropia and hyperopia >3 D were enrolled in this prospective, nonrandomized study. All children underwent an ophthalmologic examination, including refraction, keratometry, and axial length. Subjects were divided into either full- or partial-correction groups according to their tolerance of the full hyperopic correction. Routine follow-up examinations were performed for at least 3 years. The main outcome measure was cycloplegic spherical equivalent at the end of the study period. RESULTS: A total of 120 children were enrolled. The mean cycloplegic spherical equivalent, corneal radius, and axial length were significantly (p < 0.05) different between the first and last visits in both groups. However, when all the measurements were adjusted for the age difference between groups, only the difference in axial length between the first and last visits was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Partial or full optical correction in age-adjusted cohorts with accommodative esotropia did not result in a significant change in refraction, keratometry, or axial length between the first and last visits. CONCLUSIONS: Partial or full optical correction of hyperopia had similar effects on refractive development of the eye in children with accommodative esotropia. Treatment of accommodative esotropia in children older than age 5 did not appear to impair refractive development. Copyright (c) 2010 American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.