4.1 Article

Fixation patterns evaluation by means of MP-1 microperimeter in microstrabismic children treated for unilateral amblyopia

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 17, 期 6, 页码 885-890

出版社

WICHTIG EDITORE
DOI: 10.1177/112067210701700603

关键词

fixation patterns; microstrabismic children; unilateral amblyopia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. The aim of the study was to evaluate the fixation patterns of microstrabismic children previously treated for unilateral amblyopia. METHODS. Thirty-three children (mean age 7.3+/-1.5 years) were included in the study. Visual acuity (VA) was measured using the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study charts. Fixation was assessed by MP-1 microperimeter. Differences in position and stability of fixation between the fellow and the microstrabismic eyes were calculated by using the percentage of the preferred fixation points within central fixation and the percentage of the fixation points within target fixation, respectively. For statistical analysis Mann-Whitney test was used. To evaluate the influence of age and duration of anti-amblyopic treatment on microstrabismic eyes fixation, linear regression analysis was performed. RESULTS. In the microstrabismic eyes VA was significantly reduced when compared to the fellow eyes (0.1236+/-0.0204 vs 0.0042+/-0.0032 logMAR; p<0.001). Position and stability of fixation were significantly better in the fellow eyes (93.21+/-0.65% vs 70.91+/-4.80%; p=0.002, and 89.88+/-0.94% vs 71.73+/-2.94%; p<0.001, respectively). A significant correlation was found between fixation stability and both the duration of anti-amblyopic treatment and pretreatment VA (p=0.024 and p=0.009, respectively) and between fixation centrality and pretreatment VA (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS. VA, centrality, and stability of fixation were significantly impaired in the microstrabismic eyes. Pretreatment VA was a risk factor for fixation impairment. The severity of fixation stability impairment was linked to the duration of anti-amblyopic treatment.

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