| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1From the Department of Optometry and Visual Science, City University, London, United Kingdom; and the 2Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
PURPOSE. To identify factors that influence the outcome of treatment for unilateral amblyopia, as a part of the Monitored Occlusion Treatment of Amblyopia Study (MOTAS).
METHODS. This was an intervention study consisting of three nonoverlapping phases: "Baseline", "refractive adaptation" (18 weeks of full-time spectacle wear), and "occlusion" (6 hours of patching per day, objectively monitored). Condition factors: type of amblyopia, age of participant, initial severity of amblyopia, fixation, and binocular vision status; treatment factors: refractive adaptation and occlusion (total dose [hours] and dose rate [hours per day]) were assessed for their influence on visual outcome. Visual outcome was expressed in three ways: logMAR (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution) change, residual amblyopia, and proportion of the deficit corrected.
RESULTS. The study included 85 participants (mean age, 5.1 ± 1.4 years) with amblyopia associated with strabismus (n = 32) or anisometropia (n = 20) or associated with both anisometropia and strabismus (n = 33). Treatment factors: cumulative occlusion dose exceeding 50 hours, and dose rates 
1 hour per day resulted in (P 
0.01) lower residual amblyopia and a greater proportion of the deficit corrected. Condition factors associated with poor outcome (high residual amblyopia) were presence of eccentric fixation, severe initial amblyopia, and no binocular vision.
CONCLUSIONS. Factors influencing outcome with treatment for amblyopia are occlusion dose (the rate of delivery and cumulative dose worn), the initial severity of the amblyopia, binocular vision status, fixation of the amblyopic eye, and the age of the subject at the start of treatment.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  R. W. Li, A. Provost, and D. M. Levi Extended Perceptual Learning Results in Substantial Recovery of Positional Acuity and Visual Acuity in Juvenile Amblyopia Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., November 1, 2007; 48(11): 5046 - 5051. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. E. Stewart, D. A. Stephens, A. R. Fielder, M. J. Moseley, and on behalf of the MOTAS Cooperative Modeling Dose-Response in Amblyopia: Toward a Child-Specific Treatment Plan Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., June 1, 2007; 48(6): 2589 - 2594. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. A. Arnoldi Current Recommendations for Amblyopia Treatment Amer. Orthoptic Jrnl., January 1, 2007; 57(1): 60 - 67. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. E. Loudon, M. Fronius, C. W. N. Looman, M. Awan, B. Simonsz, P. J. van der Maas, and H. J. Simonsz Predictors and a remedy for noncompliance with amblyopia therapy in children measured with the occlusion dose monitor. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., October 1, 2006; 47(10): 4393 - 4400. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M Dixon-Woods, M Awan, and I Gottlob Why is compliance with occlusion therapy for amblyopia so hard? A qualitative study Arch. Dis. Child., June 1, 2006; 91(6): 491 - 494. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A R O'Connor, C E Stewart, J Singh, and A R Fielder Do infants of birth weight less than 1500 g require additional long term ophthalmic follow up? Br. J. Ophthalmol., April 1, 2006; 90(4): 451 - 455. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
