PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of strong fixation preference on clinical and surgical outcomes, in non-amblyopic patients with basic-type intermittent exotropia (IXT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The records of patients were retrospectively investigated. Non-amblyopic patients with the diagnosis of basic-type IXT were enrolled and divided into two groups according to the presence of strong fixation preference (SFP). Best-corrected visual acuity, refractive errors, deviations in near and distance, convergence patterns, motor fusion, stereopsis were evaluated and compared. Patients who underwent surgery in each group composed subgroups and postoperative deviations, convergence patterns, motor fusion, and stereopsis were compared. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients were enrolled and divided into two groups according to the presence of SFP: patients with SFP composed Group 1 and patients with alternating fixation composed Group 2. Statistically significant difference was seen between groups in terms of motor fusion (p: 0.02). Other parameters did not differ between groups. Data obtained from patients in subgroups of each group were not statistically different. CONCLUSION: The evaluation of basic-type exotropic patients according to their fixation preference revealed us that motor fusion might be affected by strong fixation preference. We also observed that SFP did not affect surgical success rates, convergence patterns, and stereopsis of exotropic patients.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of strong fixation preference on clinical and surgical outcomes, in non-amblyopic patients with basic-type intermittent exotropia (IXT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The records of patients were retrospectively investigated. Non-amblyopic patients with the diagnosis of basic-type IXT were enrolled and divided into two groups according to the presence of strong fixation preference (SFP). Best-corrected visual acuity, refractive errors, deviations in near and distance, convergence patterns, motor fusion, stereopsis were evaluated and compared. Patients who underwent surgery in each group composed subgroups and postoperative deviations, convergence patterns, motor fusion, and stereopsis were compared. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients were enrolled and divided into two groups according to the presence of SFP: patients with SFP composed Group 1 and patients with alternating fixation composed Group 2. Statistically significant difference was seen between groups in terms of motor fusion (p: 0.02). Other parameters did not differ between groups. Data obtained from patients in subgroups of each group were not statistically different. CONCLUSION: The evaluation of basic-type exotropic patients according to their fixation preference revealed us that motor fusion might be affected by strong fixation preference. We also observed that SFP did not affect surgical success rates, convergence patterns, and stereopsis of exotropic patients.