| Literature DB >> 34697548 |
Shuying Dai1, Weifeng Sun1, Hongjia Xu1, Yanan Wang1, Yuan Liu1, Aijun Han1, Lixiao Han1, Juan Wang1, Rujuan Liao1, Sujiang Liu1, Yu Gao1, Huifang Han1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the effect of applying binocular visual training after slanted lateral rectus recession on orthophoric rate and binocular visual function recovery on patients with convergence insufficiency-type intermittent exotropia (CI-IXT).Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34697548 PMCID: PMC8541848 DOI: 10.1155/2021/7202319
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Comparison of baseline information between the two groups.
| Item | Group A ( | Group B ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender (n (%)) | 0.053 | 0.818 | ||
| Male | 21 (55.26%) | 20 (52.63%) | ||
| Female | 17 (44.74%) | 18 (47.37%) | ||
|
| ||||
| Mean age (mean ± SD, years) | 8.31 ± 1.25 | 8.35 ± 1.32 | 0.136 | 0.893 |
| Duration of disease (mean ± SD, years) | 1.25 ± 0.36 | 1.28 ± 0.42 | 0.334 | 0.739 |
| Preoperative strabismus angle (mean ± SD, △) | −53.47 ± 6.84 | −53.56 ± 6.78 | 0.058 | 0.954 |
| Mean body weight (mean ± SD, kg) | 27.21 ± 3.46 | 27.35 ± 3.52 | 0.175 | 0.862 |
|
| ||||
| Place of residence (n (%)) | 0.234 | 0.629 | ||
| Urban area | 14 (36.84%) | 12 (31.58%) | ||
| Rural area | 24 (63.16%) | 26 (68.42%) | ||
Comparison of recovery of patients' binocular vision function after one month of surgery between the two groups (n (%)).
| Group |
| I | III | III |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | 38 | 4 (10.53) | 13 (34.21) | 21 (55.26) |
| Group B | 38 | 21 (55.26) | 5 (13.16) | 12 (31.58) |
|
| 17.227 | 4.659 | 4.338 | |
|
| <0.001 | <0.05 | <0.05 |
Figure 1Comparison of numbers of eyes with normal stereopsis between the two groups at different moments (eyes). Note. Compared with group B, P < 0.05.
Comparison of visual strain scores between the two groups at different moments (mean ± SD, scores).
| Group |
| Before treatment | 15 days of treatment | 1 month of treatment | 3 months of treatment | 6 months of treatment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | 38 | 11.26 ± 1.08 | 8.06 ± 1.23 | 7.28 ± 0.74 | 4.53 ± 0.51 | 3.17 ± 0.71 |
| Group B | 38 | 11.31 ± 1.14 | 9.72 ± 1.16 | 8.58 ± 0.62 | 6.26 ± 0.48 | 5.37 ± 0.67 |
|
| 0.196 | 6.052 | 8.301 | 15.227 | 13.892 | |
|
| 0.845 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Comparison of eye position of patients between the two groups after 6 months of treatment (n (%)).
| Group | Number of eyes | Orthophoria | Overcorrection | Undercorrection |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | 63 | 54 (85.71) | 7 (11.11) | 2 (3.17) |
| Group B | 61 | 33 (54.10) | 19 (31.15) | 9 (14.75) |
|
| 14.797 | 7.508 | 5.140 | |
|
| <0.001 | <0.05 | 0.023 |
Figure 2Comparison of unaided visual acuity and the best corrected visual acuity between the two groups after treatment (mean ± SD, LogMAR). Note. The difference in the mean unaided visual acuity between the two groups after treatment was significant (t = 63.690, P < 0.001). #The difference in the mean best corrected visual acuity between the two groups after treatment was significant (t = 55.670, P < 0.001).
Comparison of incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups during follow-up (n (%)).
| Group | Number of eyes | Eye distension | Blood vessel congestion of palpebral conjunctiva | Headache | Orbital pain | Total incidence rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | 63 | 2 (3.17) | 0 (0.00) | 1 (1.59) | 1 (1.59) | 4 (6.35) |
| Group B | 61 | 3 (4.92) | 2 (3.28) | 4 (6.56) | 2 (3.28) | 11 (18.03) |
|
| 3.979 | |||||
|
| 0.046 |