4.1 Article

Stereoacuity in children with anisometropic amblyopia

期刊

JOURNAL OF AAPOS
卷 15, 期 5, 页码 455-461

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2011.06.007

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Eye Institute of the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services [EY011757, EY018810]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE To determine factors associated with pretreatment and posttreatment stereoacuity in subjects with moderate anisometropic amblyopia. METHODS Data for subjects enrolled in seven studies conducted by the Pediatric Eve Disease Investigator Group were pooled. The sample included 633 subjects aged 3 to <18 years with anisometropic amblyopia, no heterotropia observed by cover test, and baseline amblyopia eye acuity of 20/100 or better. A subset included 248 subjects who were treated with patching or Bangerter filters and had stereoacuity testing at both the baseline and outcome examinations. Multivariate regression models identified factors associated with baseline stereoacuity and with outcome stereoacuity as measured by the Randot Preschool Stereoacuity test. RESULTS Better baseline stereoacuity was associated with better baseline amblyopic eve acuity (P < 0.001), less anisometropia (P = 0.03), and anisometropia due to astigmatism alone (P < 0.001). Better outcome stereoacuity was associated with better baseline stereoacuity < 0.001) and better amblyopic eye acuity at outcome (P < 0.001). Among 48 subjects whose amblyopic eye visual acuity at outcome was 20/25 or better and within one line of the fellow eve, stereoacuity was worse than that of children with normal vision of the same age. CONCLUSIONS In children with anisometropic amblyopia of 20/40 to 20/100 inclusive, better posttreatment stereoacuity is associated with better baseline stereoacuity and better posttreatment amblyopic eye acuity. Even if their visual acuity deficit resolves, many children with anisometropic amblyopia have stereoacuity worse than that of nonamblyopic children of the same age. (J AAPOS 2011;15:455-461)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据