Clinical Aniseikonia in Anisometropia and Amblyopia.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Purpose
Clinically, aniseikonia (a perceived difference in shape and image size between the eyes) is often neglected in anisometropic amblyopia due to assumed measurement difficulties. Therefore, we currently lack evidence on whether correction of aniseikonia is beneficial. This study aimed to determine whether subjective aniseikonia is measurable in anisometropia with or without amblyopia.Methods
Participants (15-52 years) with Anisometropic Amblyopia (n = 7), Anisometropia without amblyopia (n = 6) and Isometropic Controls (n = 6) were recruited. Subjective aniseikonia was measured using three clinical techniques: Robertson Technique (RT) (penlight and Maddox rod), Aniseikonia Inspector Version 3 (AI3), and the New Aniseikonia Test booklet (NAT), and a psychophysical adaptive method, the Contrast-balanced Aniseikonia Test (CAT), where dichoptic contrast adjustments compensate for any suppression.Results
Eighteen participants completed all tests, one Anisometropic Amblyopia participant could only complete the CAT and NAT due to fusion loss. The Anisometropic Amblyopia group exhibited the most aniseikonia (range -1.50-+10.50%) followed by Anisometropic Controls (range -3.30-+4.50%) and Isometropic Controls (range -1.50-+3.28%). There was a significant trend of more subjective aniseikonia with increasing amounts of anisometropia across all four tests (AI3 r = 0.630, p = 0.005; NAT r = 0.542, p = 0.017; RT r = 0.499, p = 0.035; CAT r = 0.440, p = 0.059. Bland Altman analysis demonstrated clinically significant levels of variability between the tests.Conclusions
Subjective aniseikonia can be reliably measured in patients with anisometropia and suppression. Subjective aniseikonia measurement is recommended as four of the most commonly used clinical tests did not support the 1% per dioptre rule of thumb.
SUBMITTER: South J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8269785 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundAniseikonia represents a potential barrier to neuroplasticity which may limit visual outcomes in children with anisometropic amblyopia. Full correction of refractive error is the first step in standard amblyopia treatment, which corrects for image focus but neglects image size differences.MethodsThe MAGNIFY study is a double-masked, randomised clinical trial investigating the effectiveness of aniseikonia correcting lenses in children at first diagnosis of significant anisometropia. We hypothesis that aniseikonia correction lenses will improve image clarity and reduce the retinal size differences producing better visual acuity and stereoacuity improvements after 15 weeks of optical treatment for children with anisometropia. Eligible children will be randomly allocated to the treatment group (aniseikonia-correcting spectacle lenses) or control group (standard spectacle lenses). Visual acuity and binocular functions will be assessed every 5 weeks during the 15-week optical treatment phase according to standard amblyopia treatment protocol.DiscussionIt is possible that correcting aniseikonia along with anisometropia at first diagnosis will promote binocularity as well as increase spectacle adherence by reducing visual discomfort, improving optical treatment outcomes. This could then reduce the need for additional amblyopia treatment such as patching or atropine, reducing the burden on hospital eye departments and potentially improving visual outcomes for children with amblyopia.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12620000061932 . Registered on 24 January 2020. Protocol 15th November 2019, version one.
| S-EPMC9044861 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the relationship of anisometropia with unilateral amblyopia, interocular acuity difference (IAD), and stereoacuity among Head Start preschoolers using both clinical notation and vector notation analyses.DesignMulticenter, cross-sectional study.ParticipantsThree- to 5-year-old participants in the Vision in Preschoolers (VIP) study (n = 4040).MethodsSecondary analysis of VIP data from participants who underwent comprehensive eye examinations, including monocular visual acuity testing, stereoacuity testing, and cycloplegic refraction. Visual acuity was retested with full cycloplegic correction when retest criteria were met. Unilateral amblyopia was defined as IAD of 2 lines or more in logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) units. Anisometropia was defined as a 0.25-diopter (D) or more difference in spherical equivalent (SE) or in cylinder power and 2 approaches using power vector notation. The percentage with unilateral amblyopia, mean IAD, and mean stereoacuity were compared between anisometropic and isometropic children.Main outcomes measuresThe percentage with unilateral amblyopia, mean IAD, and mean stereoacuity.ResultsCompared with isometropic children, anisometropic children had a higher percentage of unilateral amblyopia (8% vs. 2%), larger mean IAD (0.07 vs. 0.05 logMAR), and worse mean stereoacuity (145 vs. 117 arc sec; all P<0.0001). Larger amounts of anisometropia were associated with higher percentages of unilateral amblyopia, larger IAD, and worse stereoacuity (P<0.001 for trend). The percentage of unilateral amblyopia increased significantly with SE anisometropia of more than 0.5 D, cylindrical anisometropia of more than 0.25 D, vertical and horizontal meridian (J0) or oblique meridian (J45) of more than 0.125 D, or vector dioptric distance of more than 0.35 D (all P<0.001). Vector dioptric distance had greater ability to detect unilateral amblyopia than cylinder, SE, J0, or J45 (P<0.001).ConclusionsThe presence and amount of anisometropia were associated with the presence of unilateral amblyopia, larger IAD, and worse stereoacuity. The threshold level of anisometropia at which unilateral amblyopia became significant was lower than current guidelines. Vector dioptric distance is more accurate than spherical equivalent anisometropia or cylindrical anisometropia in identifying preschoolers with unilateral amblyopia.
| S-EPMC3582825 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Amblyopia is usually associated with the presence of anisometropia, strabismus or both early in life. We set out to explore quantitative relationships between the degree of anisometropia and the loss of visual function, and to examine how the presence of strabismus affects visual function in observers with anisometropia. We measured optotype acuity, Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity and stereoacuity in 84 persons with anisometropia and compared their results with those of 27 persons with high bilateral refractive error (isoametropia) and 101 persons with both strabismus and anisometropia. All subjects participated in a large-scale study of amblyopia (McKee et al., 2003). We found no consistent visual abnormalities in the strong eye, and therefore report only on vision in the weaker, defined as the eye with lower acuity. LogMAR acuity falls off markedly with increasing anisometropia in non-strabismic anisometropes, while contrast sensitivity is much less affected. Acuity degrades rapidly with increases in both hyperopic and myopic anisometropia, but the risk of amblyopia is about twice as great in hyperopic than myopic anisometropes of comparable refractive imbalance. For a given degree of refractive imbalance, strabismic anisometropes perform considerably worse than anisometropes without strabismus--visual acuity for strabismics was on average 2.5 times worse than for non-strabismics with similar anisometropia. For observers with equal refractive error in the two eyes there is very little change in acuity or sensitivity with increasing (bilateral) refractive error except for one extreme individual (bilaterally refractive error of -15 D). Most pure anisometropes with interocular differences less than 4D retain some stereopsis, and the degree is correlated with the acuity of the weak eye. We conclude that even modest interocular differences in refractive error can influence visual function.
| S-EPMC3010510 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo measure binocular interaction in amblyopes using a rapid and patient-friendly computer-based method, and to test the feasibility of the assessment in the clinic.MethodsBinocular interaction was assessed in subjects with strabismic amblyopia (n = 7), anisometropic amblyopia (n = 6), strabismus without amblyopia (n = 15) and normal vision (n = 40). Binocular interaction was measured with a dichoptic phase matching task in which subjects matched the position of a binocular probe to the cyclopean perceived phase of a dichoptic pair of gratings whose contrast ratios were systematically varied. The resulting effective contrast ratio of the weak eye was taken as an indicator of interocular imbalance. Testing was performed in an ophthalmology clinic under 8 mins. We examined the relationships between our binocular interaction measure and standard clinical measures indicating abnormal binocularity such as interocular acuity difference and stereoacuity. The test-retest reliability of the testing method was also evaluated.ResultsCompared to normally-sighted controls, amblyopes exhibited significantly reduced effective contrast (∼20%) of the weak eye, suggesting a higher contrast requirement for the amblyopic eye compared to the fellow eye. We found that the effective contrast ratio of the weak eye covaried with standard clincal measures of binocular vision. Our results showed that there was a high correlation between the 1st and 2nd measurements (r = 0.94, p<0.001) but without any significant bias between the two.ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate that abnormal binocular interaction can be reliably captured by measuring the effective contrast ratio of the weak eye and quantitative assessment of binocular interaction is a quick and simple test that can be performed in the clinic. We believe that reliable and timely assessment of deficits in a binocular interaction may improve detection and treatment of amblyopia.
| S-EPMC4069064 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe impact of aniseikonia on stereopsis has been studied for decades, however, inconsistency which may be partly attributed to the method of inducing aniseikonia exists among these findings. This study aimed to induce overall and meridional aniseikonia using a three-dimensional (3D) computer and then evaluate the effect of induced aniseikonia on distance stereopsis using contour-based and random-dot-based patterns.MethodsA 3D laptop was used to produce all of the test symbols. Unlike the usual method of creating aniseikonia with size lenses, which would change not only the size but also the relative position of the test symbols in the two images as seen by the two eyes, a new test system was designed to evaluate the aniseikonia, which only modified the size while maintaining the relative position of the test symbols. This new method reduced the disparities induced by location changing of the paired test targets when inducing aniseikonia. Aniseikonia was induced overall or in one of the meridians. The induced meridional aniseikonia included 180°, 30°, 45°, 60°, and 90°, respectively. The range of induced aniseikonia was 0-30% with an increment of 5%.ResultsOverall magnification affected stereopsis more than magnification in any one of the meridians. The stereoacuity differences between oblique meridians (30°, 45°, and 60°) were not significant until the aniseikonia increased up to 20%. The difference between 180°, 45°, and 90° was significant when the aniseikonia increased up to 10% in the contour-based test and over 20% in the random-dot-based test. The stereoacuity trend was improved gradually, coupled with the angle changing from 180º to 90º in the contour-based pattern, and deteriorated gradually in the random-dot-based pattern.ConclusionsOverall aniseikonia affected stereopsis more than meridional aniseikonia. The stereoacuity of the contour-based pattern was superior to that of the random-dot-based pattern in the 90° meridian, while the opposite result was obtained in the 180° meridian.
| S-EPMC9929788 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo date, there is still no consensus regarding the effect of binocular treatment for amblyopia. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize the available evidence to determine whether binocular treatment is more effective than patching in children with amblyopia.MethodsFour electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for studies that compared binocular treatment and patching in children with amblyopia. The outcome measures were visual acuity and stereopsis. Pooled effects sizes were calculated with a random-effect model. The standardized difference in means (SDM) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated. Sensitivity analysis and assessment of publication bias were performed.ResultsFive randomized clinical trials were included. No significant difference in visual acuity between patients treated with binocular treatment and patching was observed (SDM = -0.12; 95% CI: -0.45-0.20; P = 0.464). No significant difference in stereopsis between patients treated with binocular treatment and patching was observed (SDM = -0.07; 95% CI: -0.61-0.48; P = 0.809). For both variables, the between-study heterogeneity was high (respectively, I2 = 61% and I2 = 57%).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis found no convincing evidence supporting the efficacy of binocular treatment as an alternative to conventional patching. Therefore, the binocular treatment cannot fully replace traditional treatment but, to date, it can be considered a valid complementary therapy in peculiar cases. Further studies are required to determine whether more engaging therapies and new treatment protocols are more effective.
| S-EPMC8500435 | biostudies-literature
Project description:SignificanceWe sought to identify baseline and clinical factors that were predictive of the response to amblyopia treatment. We report that binocular amblyopia treatment may be especially effective for moderate amblyopia in orthotropic children.PurposeWe previously reported results from the primary cohort (n = 28) enrolled in a randomized clinical trial (NCT02365090), which found that binocular amblyopia treatment was more effective than patching. Enrollment of an additional 20 children was pre-planned to provide the opportunity to examine factors that may be predictive of response to amblyopia treatment.MethodsForty-eight children (4 to 10 years old) were enrolled, with 24 randomized to contrast-rebalanced binocular game treatment (1 hour a day, 5 days a week) and 24 to patching treatment (2 hours a day, 7 days a week). The primary outcome was change in amblyopic eye best-corrected visual acuity at the 2-week visit. Baseline factors examined were age at enrollment, visual acuity, stereoacuity, and suppression. Clinical factors were etiology, age at diagnosis, prior treatment, and ocular alignment.ResultsAt 2 weeks, visual acuity improvement was significantly greater with the binocular game than patching. Children with moderate amblyopia and orthotropia had more visual acuity improvement with binocular game play than did those with severe amblyopia. In addition, children who spent more time playing the binocular game had more improvement. We were not able to confidently identify any baseline or clinical factors that were associated with response to patching treatment.ConclusionsBinocular amblyopia treatment was more effective among orthotropic children with moderate amblyopia than among children with microtropia or severe amblyopia.
| S-EPMC7271687 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeWe conducted a pilot randomized clinical trial of office-based active vision therapy for the treatment of childhood amblyopia to determine the feasibility of conducting a full-scale randomized clinical trial.MethodsA training and certification program and manual of procedures were developed to certify therapists to administer a standardized vision therapy program in ophthalmology and optometry offices consisting of weekly visits for 16 weeks. Nineteen children, aged 7 to less than 13 years, with amblyopia (20/40-20/100) were randomly assigned to receive either 2 hours of daily patching with active vision therapy or 2 hours of daily patching with placebo vision therapy.ResultsTherapists in diverse practice settings were successfully trained and certified to perform standardized vision therapy in strict adherence with protocol. Subjects completed 85% of required weekly in-office vision therapy visits. Eligibility criteria based on age, visual acuity, and stereoacuity, designed to identify children able to complete a standardized vision therapy program and judged likely to benefit from this treatment, led to a high proportion of screened subjects being judged ineligible, resulting in insufficient recruitment. There were difficulties in retrieving adherence data for the computerized home therapy procedures.ConclusionsThis study demonstrated that a 16-week treatment trial of vision therapy was feasible with respect to maintaining protocol adherence; however, recruitment under the proposed eligibility criteria, necessitated by the standardized approach to vision therapy, was not successful. A randomized clinical trial of in-office vision therapy for the treatment of amblyopia would require broadening of the eligibility criteria and improved methods to gather objective data regarding the home therapy. A more flexible approach that customizes vision therapy based on subject age, visual acuity, and stereopsis might be required to allow enrollment of a broader group of subjects.
| S-EPMC3662294 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMost clinical trials of contrast-rebalanced binocular amblyopia treatment used a contrast increment protocol of 10% daily with successful play. Paired with a definition of success requiring only 15-30 min/day of gameplay, this increment protocol could allow children to reach 100% fellow eye contrast in 3-9 hours; however, this may not provide adequate therapeutic time with reduced fellow eye contrast. The purpose of this study was to compare the original protocol against three alternative contrast increment protocols designed to increase the number of treatment hours.MethodsIn this prospective study, 63 amblyopic children (4-10 years; amblyopic eye visual acuity, 20/40-125) were randomly assigned one of four daily contrast increment protocols for 4 weeks, all starting with 20% fellow eye contrast: 10%, 5%, 0%, or 10% for first 4 weeks then reset to 20% and repeat 10% increment for the final 4 weeks. Children played contrast-rebalanced games for 1 hour/day, 5 days/week. Best-corrected visual acuity, stereoacuity, and suppression were assessed at baseline and every 2 weeks until the 8-week outcome visit.ResultsAt baseline, mean amblyopic eye best-corrected visual acuity was 0.47 ± 0.14 logMAR (20/60), improving overall 0.14 ± 0.08 logMAR (1.4 lines; P < 0.0001) at 8 weeks. All four protocols resulted in similar improvement in visual acuity (0.13-0.16 logMAR; all Ps < 0.0002). Stereoacuity and suppression also improved (all Ps < 0.05).ConclusionsNone of the new protocols resulted in less improvement than the original 10% contrast increment protocol. Contrast-rebalanced binocular games yielded significant improvements in visual acuity, stereoacuity, and suppression with or without daily contrast increments.
| S-EPMC8328197 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeDevelop a paradigm to map binocular perceptual visual distortions in adult amblyopes and visually normal controls, measure their stability over time, and determine the relationship between strength of binocular single vision and distortion magnitude.MethodsPerceptual visual distortions were measured in 24 strabismic, anisometropic, or microtropic amblyopes (interocular acuity difference ≥ 0.200 logMAR or history of amblyopia treatment) and 10 controls (mean age 27.13 ± 10.20 years). The task was mouse-based target alignment on a stereoscopic liquid crystal display monitor, measured binocularly five times during viewing dichoptically through active shutter glasses, amblyopic eye viewing cross-hairs, fellow eye viewing single target dots (16 locations within central 5°), and five times nondichoptically, with all stimuli visible to either eye. Measurements were repeated over time (1 week, 1 month) in eight amblyopic subjects, evaluating test-retest reliability. Measurements were also correlated against logMAR visual acuity, horizontal prism motor fusion range, Frisby/Preschool Randot stereoacuity, and heterophoria/heterotropia prism cover test measurement.ResultsSixty-seven percent (16/24) of amblyopes had significant perceptual visual distortions under dichoptic viewing conditions compared to nondichoptic viewing conditions and dichoptic control group performance. Distortions correlated with the strength of motor fusion (r = -0.417, P = 0.043) and log stereoacuity (r = 0.492, P = 0.015), as well as near angle of heterotropic/heterophoric deviation (r = 0.740, P < 0.001), and, marginally, amblyopia depth (r = 0.405, P = 0.049). Global distortion index (GDI, mean displacement) remained, overall, consistent over time (median change in GDI between baseline and 1 week = -0.03°, 1 month = -0.08°; x-axis Z = 4.4256, P < 0.001; y-axis Z = 5.0547, P < 0.001).ConclusionsPerceptual visual distortions are stable over time and associated with poorer binocular function, greater amblyopia depth, and larger angles of ocular deviation. Assessment of distortions may be relevant for recent perceptual learning paradigms specifically targeting binocular vision.
| S-EPMC4544188 | biostudies-literature