S L Li1, R M Jost1, S E Morale1, D R Stager2, L Dao3, D Stager3, E E Birch4. 1. Crystal Charity Ball Pediatric Vision Evaluation Center, Retina Foundation of the Southwest, Dallas, TX, USA. 2. Pediatric Ophthalmology and Center for Adult Strabismus, Dallas, TX, USA. 3. Pediatric Ophthalmology and Adult Strabismus, Plano, TX, USA. 4. 1] Crystal Charity Ball Pediatric Vision Evaluation Center, Retina Foundation of the Southwest, Dallas, TX, USA [2] Department of Ophthalmology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE:Monocular amblyopia treatment (patching or penalization) does not always result in 6/6 vision and amblyopia often recurs. As amblyopia arises from abnormal binocular visual experience, we evaluated the effectiveness of a novel home-based binocular amblyopia treatment. METHODS: Children (4-12 y) wore anaglyphic glasses to play binocular games on an iPad platform for 4 h/w for 4 weeks. The first 25 children were assigned to sham games and then 50 children to binocular games. Children in the binocular group had the option of participating for an additional 4 weeks. Compliance was monitored with calendars and tracking fellow eye contrast settings. About half of the children in each group were also treated with patching at a different time of day. Best-corrected visual acuity, suppression, and stereoacuity were measured at baseline, at the 4- and 8-week outcome visits, and 3 months after cessation of treatment. RESULTS:Mean (±SE) visual acuity improved in the binocular group from 0.47±0.03 logMAR at baseline to 0.39±0.03 logMAR at 4 weeks (P<0.001); there was no significant change for the sham group. The effect of binocular games on visual acuity did not differ for children who were patched vs those who were not. The median stereoacuity remained unchanged in both groups. An additional 4 weeks of treatment did not yield additional visual acuity improvement. Visual acuity improvements were maintained for 3 months after the cessation of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Binocular iPad treatment rapidly improved visual acuity, and visual acuity was stable for at least 3 months following the cessation of treatment.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE:Monocular amblyopia treatment (patching or penalization) does not always result in 6/6 vision and amblyopia often recurs. As amblyopia arises from abnormal binocular visual experience, we evaluated the effectiveness of a novel home-based binocular amblyopia treatment. METHODS:Children (4-12 y) wore anaglyphic glasses to play binocular games on an iPad platform for 4 h/w for 4 weeks. The first 25 children were assigned to sham games and then 50 children to binocular games. Children in the binocular group had the option of participating for an additional 4 weeks. Compliance was monitored with calendars and tracking fellow eye contrast settings. About half of the children in each group were also treated with patching at a different time of day. Best-corrected visual acuity, suppression, and stereoacuity were measured at baseline, at the 4- and 8-week outcome visits, and 3 months after cessation of treatment. RESULTS: Mean (±SE) visual acuity improved in the binocular group from 0.47±0.03 logMAR at baseline to 0.39±0.03 logMAR at 4 weeks (P<0.001); there was no significant change for the sham group. The effect of binocular games on visual acuity did not differ for children who were patched vs those who were not. The median stereoacuity remained unchanged in both groups. An additional 4 weeks of treatment did not yield additional visual acuity improvement. Visual acuity improvements were maintained for 3 months after the cessation of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Binocular iPad treatment rapidly improved visual acuity, and visual acuity was stable for at least 3 months following the cessation of treatment.
Authors: P S Moke; A H Turpin; R W Beck; J M Holmes; M X Repka; E E Birch; R W Hertle; R T Kraker; J M Miller; C A Johnson Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: P E Waddingham; T K H Butler; S V Cobb; A D R Moody; I F Comaish; S M Haworth; R M Gregson; I M Ash; S M Brown; R M Eastgate; G D Griffiths Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: R M Eastgate; G D Griffiths; P E Waddingham; A D Moody; T K H Butler; S V Cobb; I F Comaish; S M Haworth; R M Gregson; I M Ash; S M Brown Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Susan A Cotter; Raymond H Chu; Danielle L Chandler; Roy W Beck; Jonathan M Holmes; Melissa L Rice; Richard W Hertle; Eileen E Birch; Pamela S Moke Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: David K Wallace; Elizabeth L Lazar; Jonathan M Holmes; Michael X Repka; Susan A Cotter; Angela M Chen; Raymond T Kraker; Roy W Beck; Michael P Clarke; Ingryd J Lorenzana; David B Petersen; Joan T Roberts; Donny W Suh Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2013-06-04 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Eileen E Birch; Simone L Li; Reed M Jost; Sarah E Morale; Angie De La Cruz; David Stager; Lori Dao; David R Stager Journal: J AAPOS Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 1.220
Authors: Christina Gambacorta; Mor Nahum; Indu Vedamurthy; Jessica Bayliss; Josh Jordan; Daphne Bavelier; Dennis M Levi Journal: Vision Res Date: 2018-05-12 Impact factor: 1.886
Authors: Tina Y Gao; Cindy X Guo; Raiju J Babu; Joanna M Black; William R Bobier; Arijit Chakraborty; Shuan Dai; Robert F Hess; Michelle Jenkins; Yannan Jiang; Lisa S Kearns; Lionel Kowal; Carly S Y Lam; Peter C K Pang; Varsha Parag; Roberto Pieri; Rajkumar Nallour Raveendren; Jayshree South; Sandra Elfride Staffieri; Angela Wadham; Natalie Walker; Benjamin Thompson Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Simone L Li; Alexandre Reynaud; Robert F Hess; Yi-Zhong Wang; Reed M Jost; Sarah E Morale; Angie De La Cruz; Lori Dao; David Stager; Eileen E Birch Journal: J AAPOS Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 1.220
Authors: Simone L Li; Reed M Jost; Sarah E Morale; Angie De La Cruz; Lori Dao; David Stager; Eileen E Birch Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 7.389