Anupam Singh1, Vartika Saxena2, Sandhya Yadav3, Ajai Agrawal3, Achala Ramawat3, Ramanuj Samanta3, Rakesh Panyala3, Barun Kumar4. 1. Ophthalmology Department, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, 249203, India. dr.anupamsingh@gmail.com. 2. Department of Community and Family Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, India. 3. Ophthalmology Department, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, 249203, India. 4. Department of Cardiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, India.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess and compare the effectiveness of home-based pencil push-up therapy (PPT) and office-based orthoptic therapy (OBOT) in patients with convergence insufficiency. METHODS: In this randomized clinical trial, 176 symptomatic patients with convergence insufficiency, aged between 9 to 30 years, were randomly assigned to receive 6 weeks of home-based PPT (Group I) or OBOT (Group II) after determining refractive error, near point of convergence (NPC), convergence insufficiency symptom survey (CISS) score, near phoria and positive fusional vergences (PFV) at near. The participants of Group I underwent home-based PPT (pencil push-ups exercises15 minutes per day, daily for 6 weeks) and those of Group II OBOT (convergence fusional exercises on synoptophore for 20 min per day, 3 days a week, for 6 weeks) without home reinforcement. Patients were re-examined at 3 and 6 weeks after initiation of treatment. NPC and CISS score were the primary and secondary outcome measures, respectively. Statistical analysis was performed with the independent samples t-test, Friedman test and the analysis of variance (ANOVA). Statistical significance was indicated by p-value < 0.05. RESULTS: Participants of both the groups had statistically significant improvement in NPC, CISS score, PFV and near phoria (p < 0.001), but there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p > 0.05). However, patients of Group II had significantly better PFV after final visit than those of Group I (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Home-based PPT with good suppression control and with compliance ensured by log book entries, is a simple, cheap, less time consuming and comparably effective alternative to more expensive OBOT for patients suffering from CI. CTRI registration number: REF/2016/11/012,732, Date of registration 25/04/ 2016, Retrospectively Registered.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To assess and compare the effectiveness of home-based pencil push-up therapy (PPT) and office-based orthoptic therapy (OBOT) in patients with convergence insufficiency. METHODS: In this randomized clinical trial, 176 symptomatic patients with convergence insufficiency, aged between 9 to 30 years, were randomly assigned to receive 6 weeks of home-based PPT (Group I) or OBOT (Group II) after determining refractive error, near point of convergence (NPC), convergence insufficiency symptom survey (CISS) score, near phoria and positive fusional vergences (PFV) at near. The participants of Group I underwent home-based PPT (pencil push-ups exercises15 minutes per day, daily for 6 weeks) and those of Group II OBOT (convergence fusional exercises on synoptophore for 20 min per day, 3 days a week, for 6 weeks) without home reinforcement. Patients were re-examined at 3 and 6 weeks after initiation of treatment. NPC and CISS score were the primary and secondary outcome measures, respectively. Statistical analysis was performed with the independent samples t-test, Friedman test and the analysis of variance (ANOVA). Statistical significance was indicated by p-value < 0.05. RESULTS:Participants of both the groups had statistically significant improvement in NPC, CISS score, PFV and near phoria (p < 0.001), but there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p > 0.05). However, patients of Group II had significantly better PFV after final visit than those of Group I (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Home-based PPT with good suppression control and with compliance ensured by log book entries, is a simple, cheap, less time consuming and comparably effective alternative to more expensive OBOT for patients suffering from CI. CTRI registration number: REF/2016/11/012,732, Date of registration 25/04/ 2016, Retrospectively Registered.