Ahead of print

Original article

Treatment of Ametropic Amblyopia and the Significance of Cycloplegia in Childhood

Full Text links

Summary

Aims: This retrospective study evaluates the effect of full cycloplegic spectacle correction on best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), interocular difference in BCVA, and the presence of stereopsis in children previously treated for ametropic amblyopia (isoametropic or anisometropic type).

Material and Methods: We analyzed data from 43 children aged 4–12 years (mean 6.42 ±2.06 years) who had been previously diagnosed and treated for amblyopia. All underwent a complete ophthalmologic examination including cycloplegic refraction, BCVA, and stereopsis testing. The primary intervention was full correction of the refractive error based on cycloplegic refraction. The patients were monitored at 3-month intervals, and the effect of treatment was assessed after 12 months. The statistical analysis included a Shapiro-Wilk test, paired t-test or Wilcoxon test, and linear regression for evaluating the impact of age and prior occlusion therapy.

Results: Average BCVA improved significantly from 0.41 to 0.65 (p < 0.0001), with 65% of amblyopic eyes improving by ≥ 2 lines on the Snellen chart. Interocular difference was reduced by 41%, and stereopsis improved from 14% to 72%. The mean difference between non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic spherical equivalents prior to treatment was 2.26 D (p < 0.0001), supporting the diagnostic value of cycloplegia. The minimal change in cycloplegic refraction over the course of one year (p > 0.05) indicated refractive stability. A regression analysis detected an insignificant negative trend between age and BCVA improvement (p = 0.069).

Conclusion: Full spectacle correction based on cycloplegic refraction leads to a statistically significant improvement in BCVA and stereopsis. Routine use of cycloplegia is essential for precise diagnosis and optimal visual outcomes in pediatric amblyopia management.

References

  1. Hu B, Liu Z, Zhao J, et al. The global prevalence of amblyopia in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Pediatr. 2022;10:819998. doi:10.3389/fped.2022.819998
  2. Hashemi H, Pakzad R, Yekta A, et al. Global and regional estimates of prevalence of amblyopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Strabismus. 2018;26(4):168-183. doi:10.1080/09273972.2018.1500618
  3. Simons K. Preschool vision screening: rationale, methodology and outcome. Surv Ophthalmol. 1996;41(1):3-30.
  4. Holmes JM, Levi DM. Treatment of amblyopia as a function of age. Vision Res. 2018;157:31-38.
  5. Cotter SA, Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group, Edwards AR, et al. Treat­ ment of anisometropic amblyopia in children with refractive correction. Ophthalmology. 2006;113(6):895-903. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.01.068
  6. Chen PL, Chen JT, Tai MC, et al. Anisometropic amblyopia treated with spectacle correction alone: possible factors predicting success and time to start patching. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143(1):54-60. Epub 2018 Feb 2. doi: 10.1111/cxo.12657
  7. Guha S, Shah S, Shah K, et al. A comparison of cycloplegic autorefraction and retinoscopy in Indian children. Clin Exp Optom. 2017;100(1):73-78. doi:10.1111/cxo.12375
  8. Yazdani N, Sadeghi R, Momeni-Moghhadam H, et al. Comparison of tropicamide and cyclopentolate for cycloplegic refraction: a meta-analysis. Eye (Lond). 2017;31(7):1089-1096.
  9. Asper L, Watt K, Khuu S. Optical treatment of amblyopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Exp Optom. 2018 Jul;101(4):431-442. doi: 10.1111/cxo.12657