Advertisement

Factors affecting the stability of visual function following cessation of occlusion therapy for amblyopia

  • Daniel J. Tacagni
  • Catherine E. StewartEmail author
  • Merrick J. Moseley
  • Alistair R. Fielder
Laboratory Investigation

Abstract

Aim

To identify factors that predict which children with amblyopia are at greatest risk of regression of visual acuity (VA) following the cessation of occlusion therapy.

Method

A retrospective analysis was performed of 182 children (mean age at cessation of treatment; 5.9±1.6 years) who had undergone occlusion therapy for unilateral amblyopia, and had been followed up at least once within 15 months of cessation. Statistical analysis was used to identify whether change in VA following treatment cessation had any association with various factors, including the child’s age, type of amblyopia, degree of anisometropia, initial severity of amblyopia, binocular vision status, length and dose of occlusion therapy, and VA response to treatment.

Results

At 1 year, follow-up from treatment cessation, children with “mixed” amblyopia (both anisometropia and strabismus) demonstrated significantly (p=0.03) greater deterioration in VA (0.11±0.11 log units) than children with only anisometropia (0.02±0.08 log units) or only strabismus (0.05±0.10 log units). However, none of the other factors investigated were found to be significant predictors.

Conclusion

This study supports previous research that it is possible to identify those children most at risk of deterioration in VA following cessation of occlusion therapy. The presence of mixed amblyopia was the only risk factor identified in this study. Management of amblyopia should take this into account, with a more intensive follow-up recommended for those with both anisometropia and strabismus (mixed) amblyopia.

Keywords

Amblyopia Visual outcome Occlusion Stability of vision Visual acuity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the staff of the Records and Research & Development Departments, and Eye Clinics (in particular Tricia Rice, Rowena McNamara & Avril Charnock) of Hillingdon and St Mary’s hospitals, London for their help with this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Ching FC, Parks MM, Friendly DS (1986) Practical management of amblyopia. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 23:12–16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hubel DH, Wiesel TN (1970) The period of susceptibility to the physiological effects of unilateral eye closure in kittens. J Physiol (London) 206:419–436Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leiba H, Shimshoni M, Oliver M, Gottesman N, Levartovsky S (2001) Long-term follow-up of occlusion therapy in amblyopia. Ophthalmology 108:1552–1555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Levartovsky S, Gottesman N, Shimshoni M, Oliver M (1992) Factors affecting long-term results of successfully treated amblyopia: age at beginning of treatment and age at cessation of monitoring. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 29:219–223PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Levartovsky S, Oliver M, Gottesman N, Shimshoni M (1995) Factors affecting long-term results of successfully treated amblyopia: initial visual acuity and type of amblyopia. Br J Ophthalmol 79:225–228PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Levartovsky S, Oliver M, Gottesman N, Shimshoni M (1998) Long-term effect of hypermetropic anisometropia on the visual acuity of treated amblyopic eyes. Br J Ophthalmol 82:55–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Malik SRK, Singh Virdi P, Goel BK (1975) Follow-up results of occlusion and pleoptic treatment. Acta Opthalmol (Copenh) 53:620–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ohlsson J, Baumann M, Sjostrand J, Abrahamsson M (2002) Long-term visual outcome in amblyopia treatment. Br J Ophthalmol 86:1148–1151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oster J, Simon JW, Jenkins P (1990) When is it safe to stop patching? Br J Ophthalmol 74:709–711PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group (2002) A randomised trial of atropine vs. patching for treatment of moderate amblyopia in children. Arch Ophthalmol 120:268–278Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group (2003) A randomized trial of patching regimens for treatment of moderate amblyopia in children. Arch Ophthalmol 121:603–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group (2003) A randomized trial of prescribed patching regimens for treatment of severe amblyopia in children. Ophthalmology 110:2075–2087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group (2004) Risk of amblyopia recurrence after cessation of treatment. J AAPOS 8:420–428Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rahi JS, Logan S, Timms C, Russell-Eggitt I, Taylor D (2002) Risk, causes and outcomes of visual impairment after loss of vision in the non-amblyopic eye: a population-based study. Lancet 360:597–602PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reeves B (2002) Taxonomy and epidemiology of amblyopia. In: Moseley MJ, Fielder AR (eds) Amblyopia: a multidisciplinary approach. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp 68–80Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel J. Tacagni
    • 1
  • Catherine E. Stewart
    • 2
    Email author
  • Merrick J. Moseley
    • 2
  • Alistair R. Fielder
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of MedicineImperial College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Optometry and Visual ScienceCity UniversityLondonUK

Personalised recommendations