June 2020
Volume 61, Issue 7
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2020
The effect of optical treatment on refractive amblyopia: comparison of treatment responders and non-responders
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Tiong Peng Yap
    School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, Singapore, Singapore
    Paediatric Optometry, IGARD Centre, Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
  • Chi D Luu
    Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • Catherine Suttle
    Division of Optometry and Visual Sciences, City, University of London, London, United Kingdom
    Department of Surgery (Ophthalmology), The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • Audrey Chia
    Department of Paediatric Ophthalmology and Adult Strabismus, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore, Singapore
    Paediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus Department, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
  • Mei Ying Boon
    School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, Singapore, Singapore
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Tiong Peng Yap, None; Chi Luu, None; Catherine Suttle, None; Audrey Chia, None; Mei Ying Boon, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2020, Vol.61, 505. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Tiong Peng Yap, Chi D Luu, Catherine Suttle, Audrey Chia, Mei Ying Boon; The effect of optical treatment on refractive amblyopia: comparison of treatment responders and non-responders. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2020;61(7):505.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : We previously found that four months of optical treatment in children with newly diagnosed refractive amblyopia were associated with improvement in visual acuity (VA), psychophysical grating acuity (GA) and pattern-onset visual evoked potentials (POVEP), albeit still significantly poorer compared to non-amblyopic children. The purpose of the present study was to characterize the POVEPs (morphology, component amplitudes/latencies and meridional anisotropies) of the amblyopic children divided into subgroups of responders and non-responders to optical treatment.

Methods : Newly diagnosed refractive (non-strabismic) amblyopes were recruited. Baseline POVEPs and GAs in response to 4 cycle per degree achromatic sinewave gratings were assessed when spectacles were dispensed (Visit 1) and after 4 months of optical treatment (Visit 2). Gratings were oriented at the principal astigmatic meridians (Meridians 1 & 2) monocularly and 45, 90, 135 and 180 degrees binocularly. Amblyopes who improved VA by >10 letters (i.e. <0.20 logMAR) were classified “responders” and the rest “non-responders”. The effects of orientation (Meridians 1 & 2), visit (Visit 1 & 2) and treatment outcome (Responder / Non-responder). Binocular data was analysed using repeated measures ANCOVA.

Results : Eleven responders and 11 non-responders (aged 3.8 - 7.1 years) completed 4.9 ±1.2 months of treatment. VA improved by 12 and 0.5 letters respectively. There was significant improvement in monocular C3 amplitude (5.73 ±2.47 μV, p = 0.048) and GA (0.51 octaves, equivalent to approximately 2 lines in logMAR VA, p < 0.0001) in responders but not non-responders. Monocular C3 latency was 8.7 ±3.6 ms faster in responders at both visits as compared to non-responders (p = 0.028), but there was no significant difference between visits for both groups. Binocular results had no significant inter-group differences in all outcome measures. There were no significant inter-group differences in meridional anisotropies for both monocular and binocular results.

Conclusions : Treatment responders had significantly better monocular POVEP and GA compared to non-responders. Amblyopes with shorter monocular C3 latencies at the point of diagnosis were more likely to respond to optical treatment. Further studies may explore baseline C3 latency as a predictor of treatment response.

This is a 2020 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×