Rosanne Superstein1, Trevano W Dean2, Jonathan M Holmes3, Danielle L Chandler2, Susan A Cotter4, David K Wallace5, B Michele Melia2, Raymond T Kraker2, R Grey Weaver6, Brian G Mohney3, Sean P Donahue7, Eileen E Birch8. 1. Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Electronic address: pedig@jaeb.org. 2. Jaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida. 3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 4. Southern California College of Optometry at Marshall B. Ketchum University, Fullerton, California. 5. Duke Eye Center, Durham, North Carolina. 6. Department of Ophthalmology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 7. Vanderbilt Eye Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 8. Retina Foundation of the Southwest, Dallas, Texas.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the relationships between stereoacuity, control of exotropia, and angle of deviation in children with intermittent exotropia (IXT). METHODS: Data collected for 652 participants 3 to <11 years of age with IXT meeting eligibility criteria for enrollment into one of two multicenter, randomized clinical trials were used to evaluate relationships between stereoacuity, control, and angle of deviation at enrollment. RESULTS: Any level of stereoacuity and angle of deviation could be accompanied by any level of control. Worse distance exotropia control was weakly associated with poorer distance stereoacuity (R = 0.26; 99% CI, 0.17-0.36) and larger angles of deviation at distance (R = 0.27; 99% CI, 0.17-0.36). Worse near exotropia control was weakly associated with poorer near stereoacuity (R = 0.17; 99% CI, 0.07-0.27) and moderately associated with larger angles of deviation at near (R = 0.37; 99% CI, 0.28-0.45). There was no association between stereoacuity and angle of deviation at distance (R = 0.07; 99% CI, -0.03 to 0.17) or at near (R = 0.02; 99% CI, -0.08 to 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Although weak and moderate associations were found between stereoacuity, control, and angle of deviation, a child may exhibit any combination of stereoacuity, control, and angle of deviation. The specific roles of control, stereoacuity, and angle of deviation in the diagnosis, management, and pathogenesis of IXT are unclear, and each appears to yield somewhat independent information.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To determine the relationships between stereoacuity, control of exotropia, and angle of deviation in children with intermittent exotropia (IXT). METHODS: Data collected for 652 participants 3 to <11 years of age with IXT meeting eligibility criteria for enrollment into one of two multicenter, randomized clinical trials were used to evaluate relationships between stereoacuity, control, and angle of deviation at enrollment. RESULTS: Any level of stereoacuity and angle of deviation could be accompanied by any level of control. Worse distance exotropia control was weakly associated with poorer distance stereoacuity (R = 0.26; 99% CI, 0.17-0.36) and larger angles of deviation at distance (R = 0.27; 99% CI, 0.17-0.36). Worse near exotropia control was weakly associated with poorer near stereoacuity (R = 0.17; 99% CI, 0.07-0.27) and moderately associated with larger angles of deviation at near (R = 0.37; 99% CI, 0.28-0.45). There was no association between stereoacuity and angle of deviation at distance (R = 0.07; 99% CI, -0.03 to 0.17) or at near (R = 0.02; 99% CI, -0.08 to 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Although weak and moderate associations were found between stereoacuity, control, and angle of deviation, a child may exhibit any combination of stereoacuity, control, and angle of deviation. The specific roles of control, stereoacuity, and angle of deviation in the diagnosis, management, and pathogenesis of IXT are unclear, and each appears to yield somewhat independent information.
Authors: Susan A Cotter; Brian G Mohney; Danielle L Chandler; Jonathan M Holmes; Michael X Repka; Michele Melia; David K Wallace; Roy W Beck; Eileen E Birch; Raymond T Kraker; Susanna M Tamkins; Aaron M Miller; Nicholas A Sala; Stephen R Glaser Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Brian G Mohney; Susan A Cotter; Danielle L Chandler; Jonathan M Holmes; Angela M Chen; Michele Melia; Sean P Donahue; David K Wallace; Raymond T Kraker; Melanie L Christian; Donny W Suh Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Sarah R Hatt; Laura Liebermann; David A Leske; Brian G Mohney; Jonathan M Holmes Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2011-08-16 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Jingyun Wang; Sarah R Hatt; Anna R O'Connor; James R Drover; Russell Adams; Eileen E Birch; Jonathan M Holmes Journal: J AAPOS Date: 2010-03-03 Impact factor: 1.220
Authors: Tao Sun; Zhonghao Wang; Tao Shen; Jianhua Yan; Chuanbo Xie; Xiuhong Li Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-08-21 Impact factor: 3.390