Korean J Ophthalmol.  2008 Mar;22(1):26-31. 10.3341/kjo.2008.22.1.26.

Outcomes of 6 Hour Part-time Occlusion Treatment Combined with Near Activities for Unilateral Amblyopia

• Park KS
• Chang YH
• Na KD
• Hong S
• Han SH

• KMID: 1107487
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2008.22.1.26

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the outcome of the part-time occlusion therapy with near activities in monocular amblyopic patients according to gender, age, severity of amblyopia, and the cause of amblyopia. METHODS: Fifty eight patients who were prescribed part-time occlusion therapy with near activity from July 1998 to October 2004, were included in this retrospective study. All patients were divided into groups by gender, age, severity of amblyopia, and the cause of amblyopia. Main outcome measures were best corrected visual acuity, line improvement, and success rate. RESULTS: At the end of patch therapy, visual acuity improved from baseline by an average of 3.2+/-2.5 lines (0.33+/-0.26 log MAR), and follow-up period was 19.71+/-14.61 months (1.62+/-1.20 years). At the last follow-up, visual acuity improved from baseline by an average of 3.7+/-2.4 lines (0.38+/-0.26 log MAR), and follow-up period was 37.41+/-25.83 months (3.08+/-2.12 years). The success rate was 86% (50 patients) at the end of patch therapy. In 44 patients out of 50 patients (88%), the visual acuity was maintained. While 43 patients out of 47 patients who were less than 7 years old (91%) achieved success, 7 patients out of 11 patients 7 years or older (64%) achieved success (p=0.035). CONCLUSIONS: Six-hour part-time occlusion treatment combined with near activities appears to be favorable in treating 58 children during follow-up of mean 3.08 years. The significant factor was the age at initial treatment.

Keyword

Amblyopia; Near activities; Part-time occlusion treatment

MeSH Terms

*Activities of Daily Living
Amblyopia/physiopathology/*therapy
Child, Preschool
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Male
Retrospective Studies
*Sensory Deprivation
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Visual Acuity/physiology

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Change of visual acuity according to cause of amblyopia in 12 months.

Reference

1. Bacal DA. Amblyopia treatment studies. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2004. 15:432–436.

2. von Noorden GK, Campos E. Binocular vision and ocular motility: theory and management of strabismus. 2002. 6th ed. St. Louis: Mosby;537–558.

3. Pandey PK, Chaudhuri Z, Kumar M, et al. Effect of levodopa and carbidopa in human amblyopia. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2002. 39:81–89.

4. Kaye SB, Chen SI, Price G, et al. Combined optical and atropine penalization for the treatment of strabismic and anisometropic amblyopia. J AAPOS. 2002. 6:289–293.

5. Roberts CJ, Adams GGW. Contact lenses in the management of high anisometropic amblyopia. Eye. 2002. 16:577–579.

6. Autrata R, Rehurek J. Laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy and photorefractive keratectomy versus conventional treatment of myopic anisometropic amblyopia in children. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004. 30:74–84.

7. Hiscox F, Strong N, Thompson JR, et al. Occlusion for amblyopia: a comprehensive survey of outcome. Eye. 1992. 6:300–304.

8. Olson RJ, Scott WE. A practical approach to occlusion therapy for amblyopia. Semin Ophthalmol. 1997. 12:161–165.

9. Rutstein RP. Alternative treatment for amblyopia. Probl Optom. 1991. 3:351–354.

10. Repka MX, Beck RW, Holmes JM, et al. A randomized trial of patching regimens for treatment of moderate amblyopia in children. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003. 121:603–611.

11. Holmes JM, Kraker RT, Beck RW, et al. A randomized trial of prescribed patching regimens for treatment of severe amblyopia in children. Ophthalmology. 2003. 110:2075–2087.

12. Scott WE, Kutschke PJ, Keech RV, et al. Amblyopia treatment outcomes. J AAPOS. 2005. 9:107–111.

13. Awan M, Proudlock FA, Gottlob I. A randomized controlled trial of unilateral strabismic and mixed amblyopia using occlusion dose monitors to record compliance. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005. 46:1435–1439.

14. Stewart CE, Fielder AR, Stephens DA, Moseley MJ. Treatment of unilateral amblyopia: factors influencing visual outcome. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005. 46:3152–3160.

15. Malik SRK, Virdi PS, Goel BK. Follow-up results of occlusion and pleoptic treatment. Acta Ophthalmol. 1975. 53:620–625.

16. Sparrow JC, Flynn JT. Amblyopia: a long-term follow-up. J Pediatr Ophthalmol. 1977. 14:333–336.

17. Bowman RJC, Williamson TH, Andrews RGL, et al. An inner city preschool visual screening programme: long term visual results. Br J Ophthalmol. 1998. 82:543–548.

18. Levartovsky S, Gottesman N, Shimshoni M, Oliver M. Factors affecting long-term results of successfully treated amblyopia: age at beginning of treatment and age at cessation of monitoring. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1992. 29:219–223.

19. Leiba H, Shimshoni M, Oliver M, et al. Long-term follow-up of occlusion therapy in amblyopia. Ophthalmology. 2001. 108:1552–1555.

20. Flynn JT, Schiffman J, Feuer W, Corona A. The therapy of amblyopia: an analysis of the results of amblyopia therapy utilizing the pooled data of published studies. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1998. 96:431–450. discussion 450-3.

21. Cleary M. Efficacy of occlusion for strabismic amblyopia: can an optimal duration be identified? Br J Ophthalmol. 2000. 84:572–578.

22. Mintz Hittner HA, Fernandez KM. Successful amblyopia therapy initiated after age 7 years: compliance cures. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000. 118:1535–1541.

23. Park KH, Hwang JM, Ahn JK. Efficacy of amblyopia therapy initiated after 9 years of age. Eye. 2004. 18:571–574.

24. Scheiman MM, Hertle RW, Beck RW, et al. Randomized trial of treatment of amblyopia in children aged 7 to 17 years. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005. 123:437–447.

25. Holmes JM, Edwards AR, Beck RW, et al. A randomized pilot study of near activities versus non-near activities during patching therapy for amblyopia. J AAPOS. 2005. 9:129–136.