J Korean Ophthalmol Soc.  2015 Sep;56(9):1432-1438. 10.3341/jkos.2015.56.9.1432.

Comparison of Improvement Rates between Distance and Near Visual Acuity in Children with Unilateral Amblyopia

• Jin H
• Chung SA

• KMID: 2214560
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2015.56.9.1432

Abstract

PURPOSE
To compare the improvement rates of distance visual acuity (VA) with that of near VA in amblyopic eyes of children with unilateral amblyopia.
METHODS
The medical records of children with unilateral amblyopia successfully treated with patching were reviewed. During subsequent visits for amblyopia treatment, subjects had best-corrected VA measured at 4 meters and 1/3 meters every 2 months. Duration of treatment to achieve equal VA between both eyes and improvement rates were compared between distance and near, and analyzed according to the cause and severity of amblyopia, or age.
RESULTS
A total of 76 children with amblyopia due to anisometropia and/or strabismus started amblyopia treatment at a mean age of 5.8 years and were followed up during a mean period of 16.4 months. Baseline VA was better at near than at distance in 52 children (68.4%), and better at distance than at near in 4 (5.3%). The mean duration of treatment was 5.4 months at distance and 3.9 months at near. However, the improvement rate considering the amount of improvement of VA was faster at distance; 0.11 log MAR/month at distance, and 0.08 log MAR/month at near (p = 0.016). The improvement rate differences between distance and near did not differ based on the cause of amblyopia, or age, whereas in mild amblyopia the improvement rate of distance VA was significantly faster than near. Additionally, children with better initial near VA tended to have a faster improvement rate of distance VA.
CONCLUSIONS
Although baseline VA was better at near than at distance in more patients, the improvement rate was faster at distance than at near. Children with better initial near VA appeared to have a faster improvement rate of distance VA.

Keyword

Amblyopia; Distance visual acuity; Improvement rate; Near visual acuity

MeSH Terms

Amblyopia*
Anisometropia
Child*
Humans
Medical Records
Strabismus
Visual Acuity*

Figure

• 

  Figure 1. Improvement rate (change in log MAR VA/month) of distance (■) and near (◆) visual acuity in the amblyopic eye. (A) Improvement rate of all patients. (B) Improvement rate of subgroups divided by the severity of amblyopia. VA = visual acuity. * Paired t-test for the improvement rate between distance and near; † One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the difference be-tween distance and near among subgroups.

Reference

References

1. von Noorden GK. Binocular Vision and Ocular Motility. 6th. St. Louis: CV Mosby;2002. p. 246.

2. Stewart CE, Fielder AR, Stephens DA. . Treatment of unilat-eral amblyopia: factors influencing visual outcome. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005; 46:3152–60.

3. Oh DE, Lim KH. Efficacy of occlusion therapy in amblyopia: type, depth and timing of amblyopia. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2003; 44:2850–6.

4. Park SB, Kwon JY. Occlusion effects on anisometropic amblyopia. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2001; 42:1753–9.

5. Holmes JM, Lazar EL, Melia BM. . Effect of age on response to amblyopia treatment in children. Arch Ophthalmol. 2011; 129:1451–7.

6. Woodruff G, Hiscox F, Thompson JR, Smith LK. Factors affecting the outcome of children treated for amblyopia. Eye (Lond). 1994; 8:627–31.

7. Roh GH, Cho YA. Compliance of patching therapy for amblyopia. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1993; 34:1171–7.

8. Christoff A, Repka MX, Kaminski BM. . Distance versus near visual acuity in amblyopia. J AAPOS. 2011; 15:342–4.

9. Catford GV. Amblyopia: a comparison between distance and near vision. Br J Ophthalmol. 1956; 40:633–5.

10. von Noorden GK, Helveston EM. Influence of eye position on fix-ation behavior and visual acuity. Am J Ophthalmol. 1970; 70:199–204.

11. Lennarson LW, France TD, Portnoy J, Scott WE. A comparison of distance and near vision in amblyopia. Ravault AP, Lenk M, editors. Transactions of the Fifth International Orthoptic Congress, Cannes, France. 10th, 13th October 1983. 1st. Lyon: LIPS;1983. p. 329–36.

12. Guyton DL, O’Connor GM. Dynamic retinoscopy. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 1991; 2:78–80.

13. Abraham SV. Accommodation in the amblyopic eye. Am J Ophthalmol. 1961; 52:197–200.

14. Hokoda SC, Ciuffreda KJ. Measurement of accommodative ampli-tude in amblyopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1982; 2:205–12.

15. Stewart CE, Moseley MJ, Fielder AR. Defining and measuring treatment outcome in unilateral amblyopia. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003; 87:1229–31.

16. Kim EK, Choi MY, Kim YH. Clinical analysis of successfully treated amblyopia with anisometropia, strabismus, and combined cause. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2008; 49:303–8.

17. Foley-Nolan A, McCann A, O’keefe M. Atropine penalization ver-sus occlusion as the primary treatment for amblyopia. Br J Ophthalmol. 1997; 81:54–7.

18. Mintz-Hittner HA, Fernandez KM. Successful amblyopia therapy initiated after 7 years: compliance cures. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000; 118:1535–41.

19. Weakley DR Jr. The association between nonstrabismic anisome-tropia, amblyopia, and subnormal binocularity. Ophthalmology. 2001; 108:163–71.

20. Berntsen DA, Sinnott LT, Mutti DO. . Accommodative lag and juvenile-onset myopia progression in children wearing refractive correction. Vision Res. 2011; 51:1039–46.

21. Campos E. Amblyopia. Surv Ophthalmol. 1995; 40:23–39.

22. Holmes JM, Beck RW, Repka MX. . The amblyopia treatment study visual acuity testing protocol. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001; 119:1345–53.

23. Holmes JM, Edwards AR, Beck RW. . A randomized pilot study of near activities versus non-near activities during patching therapy for amblyopia. J AAPOS. 2005; 9:129–36.

24. Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. A randomized trial of near versus distance activities while patching for amblyopia in children aged 3 to less than 7 years. Ophthalmology. 2008; 115:2071–8.