Is there value in measuring near visual acuity during occlusion therapy for amblyopia?

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to investigate near and distance visual acuity (VA) prior to, during and on completion of occlusion therapy for amblyopia. Method: Fifty-four patients aged 4-7 years (mean 4.9; ±0.44) with untreated strabismic, anisometropic or mixed amblyopia were recruited to the study following refractive adaptation where applicable. All patients underwent conventional occlusion (patching). Uniocular near and distance VA was tested using age and ability appropriate Crowded LogMAR VA tests prior to, during and upon conclusion of occlusion therapy. Results: In amblyopic eyes, there was no significant difference between near and distance VA prior to occlusion therapy with LogMAR Crowded (p = .66; mean distance VA at 3 m = 0.6 LogMAR; mean near VA at 40 cm = 0.58 LogMAR), or with LogMAR Crowded Kay Picture test (p = .78, mean distance VA at 3 m = 0.44 LogMAR; mean near VA at 33 cm = 0.46 LogMAR;). No significant difference was found between near and distance VA at any visit during occlusion therapy, or on completion of occlusion therapy with LogMAR Crowded (p = .86, mean final distance VA at 3 m = 0.266 LogMAR; mean final near VA at 40 cm = 0.25 LogMAR) or LogMAR Crowded Kay Pictures (p = .74, mean final distance VA at 3 m = 0.16 LogMAR; mean final near VA at 33 cm = 0.16 LogMAR). There was no significant difference in the VA of the fellow (non-amblyopic) eyes prior to and on completion of occlusion therapy with LogMAR Crowded at distance (3 m) or near (40 cm) (p = .05, p = .40 respectively); or with LogMAR Crowded Kay Pictures at distance (3 m) or near (33 cm) (p = .89, p = .35 respectively). Discussion: Improvement in VA of amblyopic eyes did not significantly differ between near and distance testing proximites at any point during the course of occlusion therapy for amblyopia in our study. These findings may aid clinicians with appropriate test selection and help with clinical time pressures. Where patient concentration does not allow for uniocular distance vision, uniocular near vision may be used to diagnose amblyopia, and vice versa. This could prevent delay in the treatment of amblyopia.

The Role of Binocularity in Anisometropic Amblyopia

Anisometropic amblyopia is unilateral by definition and current treatment recommendations reflect that characteristic. However, recent research suggests a binocular component that deserves consideration. The aim of this review is to consider the levels of anisometropia deemed amblyogenic, and the cortical changes that occur in the presence of anisometropic amblyopia. Particular attention is given to cortical changes that impact the binocularity of these individuals. Knowledge of binocular deficits in anisometropic amblyopia has implications for current, accepted treatment regimens which are monocular in nature. Therefore, the integrity of binocular function in anisometropic amblyopia and its impact on the visual outcome will be evaluated. Given the rise in binocular treatments under clinical trial for amblyopia, this review also aims to evaluate the evidence of potentially enhanced benefits to anisometropic amblyopes from proposed new binocular therapies.

Amblyopia treatment and quality of life: the child's perspective on atropine versus patching

Background: The impact on children of patching versus atropine treatment for amblyopia was assessed using children's perspective Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) scores in 5 to 7-year olds. Methods: Forty-six children on the threshold of commencing either patching or atropine treatment for amblyopia were recruited. Treatment was prescribed for uniocular amblyopia of visual acuity (VA) 0.2 logMAR or worse. After four weeks of their chosen treatment, each child completed the Child Amblyopia Treatment Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (CAT-QoL). The Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL™), Young Child (5-7) Self-Report version, was completed before and after four weeks of treatment. Quality of life scores were compared between the two treatment groups. Results: Sixty-one percent (n = 28) of participants were male and 56.5% (n = 26) were white British. The CAT-QoL has a range of 0-16, with 16 being the worst quality of life. No significant difference was found between the patching group (n = 30, mean age 69.7 months) and the atropine group (n = 16, mean age 69.3 months) for CAT-QoL quality of life scores (Patch median = 6.3, Atropine median = 5.6, U = 199, p = .341, 95% CI of the median difference of -2.3 to 0.9). The Young Child (5-7) Self-Report version of the PedsQL™ has a 'total score' range of 0-100, with 0 being the worst quality of life. There was also no significant difference in PedsQL™ quality of life total scores (Patch median = 80, Atropine median = 83.33, U = 239.5, p = .991, 95% CI of the median difference -13.33 to 10) after four weeks of treatment. Conclusion: Amblyopic children reported that patching and atropine treatments did not have a significant impact on their quality of life. Patching and atropine should continue to be offered as first-line treatments for amblyopia, as children appear to tolerate both well and do not favor one over the other.

Peripheral Visual Reaction Time Is Faster in Deaf Adults and British Sign Language Interpreters than in Hearing Adults

Following auditory deprivation, the remaining sense of vision has shown selective enhancement in visual cognition, especially in the area of near peripheral vision. Visual acuity is poor in the far periphery and may be an area where sound confers the greatest advantage in hearing persons. Experience with a visuospatial language such as British Sign Language (BSL) makes additional demands on the visual system. To test the different and separable effects of deafness and use of a visuo-spatial language on far peripheral visual processing, we investigated visual reaction times (RTs) and response accuracy to visual stimuli, between 30° and 85° along the four cardinal and four inter-cardinal meridians. We used three luminances of static, briefly illuminated stimuli in visually normal adults. The cohort tested included profoundly congenitally deaf adults (N = 17), hearing fluent BSL users (N = 8) and hearing non-signing adults (N = 18). All participants were tested using a peripheral forced choice paradigm designed previously to test deaf and hearing children (Codina et al., 2011a). Deaf adults demonstrated significantly faster RTs to all far peripheral stimuli and exceeded the abilities of both signing and non-signing hearing adults. Deaf adults were significantly faster than BSL interpreters, who in turn were significantly faster than hearing non-signing adults. The differences in RT demonstrated between groups were consistent across all visual field meridians and were not localized to any one region of the visual field. There were no differences found between any groups in accuracy of detecting these static stimuli at any retinal location. Early onset auditory deprivation appears to lead to a response time visual advantage in far peripheral responses to briefly presented, static LED stimuli, especially in the right visual field. Fluency in BSL facilitates faster visuo-motor responses in the peripheral visual field, but to a lesser extent than congenital, profound deafness.