| Literature DB >> 29765779 |
Liuyang Li1, Yan Wang1,2, Caihong Xue2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: As a secondary analysis, we reassess the association of initial congenital cataract surgery times, compliance to amblyopia therapy, and visual outcomes for a long-term follow-up in a secondary IOL implantation.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29765779 PMCID: PMC5885399 DOI: 10.1155/2018/2909024
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ophthalmol ISSN: 2090-004X Impact factor: 1.909
Children's demographics.
| Characteristics |
|
|---|---|
| Sex | |
| Male | 65 (59.1%) |
| Female | 45 (40.9%) |
| Laterality | |
| Bilateral | 76 (69.1%) |
| Unilateral | 34 (30.9%) |
| Opacity type | |
| Partial opacity | 46 (41.8%) |
| Total opacity | 64 (58.2%) |
| Compliance to amblyopia therapy | |
| None | 24 (21.8%) |
| Poor | 27 (24.5%) |
| Good | 59 (53.6%) |
| Median (min–max), age at cataract extraction, months | 7.5 (3.0–15.0) |
| Age at cataract extraction | |
| Median (min–max), low, months | 4.0 (3.0–5.0) |
| Median (min–max), high, months | 9.0 (6.0–15.0) |
| Median (min–max), age at IOL implantation, months | 35.0 (22.0–184.0) |
| Mean (SD), follow-up time from IOL implantation, months | 99.3 (23.6) |
| Mean (SD), age at last follow-up, years | 12.6 (4.5) |
| Median (min–max), UCVA | 0.12 (0.01–1.00) |
| Median (min–max), BCVA | 0.20 (0.01–1.00) |
| Median (min–max), logMAR BCVA | 0.70 (0.00–2.00) |
UCVA: uncorrected visual acuity; BCVA: best-corrected visual acuity.
Figure 1Smooth curve fitting of cataract extraction times and long-term visual outcomes. In the figure, the solid line indicates the estimated long-term visual outcomes, and the dotted lines represent the point wise 95% confidence interval. Laterality, opacity type, and compliance to amblyopia therapy have been adjusted.
Multivariate regression analysis of cataract extraction times and long-term visual outcomes.
| Nonadjusted | Adjust I | Adjust II | |
|---|---|---|---|
| LogMAR BCVA [ | |||
| Age | 0.06 (0.04, 0.08), <0.0001 | 0.05 (0.03, 0.07), <0.0001 | 0.04 (0.03, 0.06), <0.0001 |
| Age (high versus low)a | 0.29 (0.12, 0.47), 0.0014 | 0.23 (0.09, 0.37), 0.0005 | 0.22 (0.10, 0.34), 0.0005 |
| Bad logMAR BCVAb [OR (95% CI), | |||
| Age | 1.35 (1.16, 1.57), 0.0001 | 1.35 (1.15, 1.58), 0.0002 | 1.62 (1.26, 2.09), 0.0002 |
| Age (high versus low)a | 3.20 (1.43, 7.15), 0.0045 | 3.05 (1.30, 7.18), 0.0105 | 6.50 (2.02, 20.89), 0.0017 |
aThe high extraction age was 4.0 (3.0–5.0) months [median (min–max)] and the low extraction age was 9.0 (6.0–15.0) months [median (min–max)]; bthe bad visual acuity was BCVA equal or worse than 20/50; nonadjusted model adjust for: none; adjust I model adjust for: laterality; compliance to amblyopia therapy; adjust II model adjust for: laterality; opacity type; compliance to amblyopia therapy.
Figure 2Kaplan–Meier analysis of the probability of good long-term visual acuity. Kaplan–Meier analysis showed the probability of good long-term visual acuity, which was defined as logMAR BCVA less than 0.4. The solid line indicates the patients who had lenses extracted at 3 months to 5 months, and the dotted lines represent those who had lenses extracted at 6 months to 15 months. (log rank, p = 0.097).
Multivariate regression analysis of compliance with amblyopia therapy and long-term visual outcomes.
| LogMAR BCVA [ | ||
|---|---|---|
| Amblyopia therapy compliance | Nonadjusted | Adjusted |
| Nonea | Reference | Reference |
| Poorb | −0.12 (−0.37, 0.13), 0.3536 | −0.10 (−0.25, 0.05), 0.2012 |
| Goodc | −0.33 (−0.55, −0.12), 0.0033 | −0.40 (−0.53, −0.27), <0.0001 |
a,b,cCompliance with amblyopia therapy was reported as none, poor, or good if 0–25%, 25–75%, or 75–100%, respectively, of the prescribed hours were reported; nonadjusted model adjust for: none; adjust model adjust for: laterality; opacity type; extraction age.