Kosin Med J.  2024 Dec;39(4):259-264. 10.7180/kmj.24.123.

Stereopsis and clinical features of esotropia patients accompanied by congenital mild ptosis

• Choi H
• Kim SJ
• Yang SA
• Han KE

• KMID: 2562809
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.7180/kmj.24.123

Abstract

Background
To evaluate binocular function and clinical features in patients with esotropia (ET) accompanied by congenital ptosis.
Methods
Clinical records of 44 ET patients with congenital ptosis (ET-ptosis group) and 71 age-matched ET patients without ptosis (ET only group) who presented for eye examination between January 2016 and December 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), magnitude of esodeviation and stereopsis at the first visit were reviewed. Stereopsis and other clinical features of the two groups were compared.
Results
The mean (±standard deviation) age of overall patients was 5.7 (±1.9) years. The margin reflex distance 1 (MRD1) of patients with ptosis was greater than 0 but less than or equal to 2, indicating that mild ptosis was included. There was no significant difference in the distribution of age, sex, spherical equivalent refractive errors, BCVA, or magnitude of ET (at distance or near) between the two groups (all p>0.05). Furthermore, stereopsis and the number of patients with amblyopia did not differ significantly between the two groups. The magnitudes of esodeviation, near stereopsis and BCVA did not differ significantly between the 0Conclusions
In patients with ET and congenital mild ptosis, stereopsis and visual acuity were not different from those in ET only patients. The presence of coexisting mild ptosis might not have a further deleterious impact on binocular function in ET patients.

Keyword

Amblyopia; Congenital mild ptosis; Esotropia; Depth perception

Reference

References

1. Nemet AY, Segal O, Mimouni M, Vinker S. Associated morbidity of pediatric ptosis: a large, community based case-control study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014; 252:1509–14.

2. Anderson RL, Baumgartner SA. Strabismus in ptosis. Arch Ophthalmol. 1980; 98:1062–7.

3. Dray JP, Leibovitch I. Congenital ptosis and amblyopia: a retrospective study of 130 cases. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2002; 39:222–5.

4. Parsa CF, Robert MP. Thromboembolism and congenital malformations: from Duane syndrome to thalidomide embryopathy. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2013; 131:439–47.

5. Wang Y, Xu Y, Liu X, Lou L, Ye J. Amblyopia, strabismus and refractive errors in congenital ptosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2018; 8:8320.

6. Rah SH, Jun HS, Kim SH. An epidemiologic survey of strabismus among school-children in Korea. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1997; 38:2195–9.

7. McKean-Cowdin R, Cotter SA, Tarczy-Hornoch K, Wen G, Kim J, Borchert M, et al. Prevalence of amblyopia or strabismus in Asian and non-Hispanic white preschool children: multi-ethnic pediatric eye disease study. Ophthalmology. 2013; 120:2117–24.

8. Srinagesh V, Simon JW, Meyer DR, Zobal-Ratner J. The association of refractive error, strabismus, and amblyopia with congenital ptosis. J AAPOS. 2011; 15:541–4.

9. Choi HY, Kim SJ, Kim SY, Ahn JH, Lee JE. Binocular function in patients with intermittent exotropia accompanied by unilateral congenital ptosis. Sci Rep. 2022; 12:18286.

10. Nerad JA. Evaluation and treatment of the patient with ptosis. In : Nerad JA, editor. Oculoplastic surgery: the requisites in ophthalmology. Mosby;2001. p. 15–92.

11. von Noorden GK. Binocular vision and ocular motility. 5th ed. Mosby;1996.

12. Fawcett SL, Birch EE. Interobserver test-retest reliability of the Randot preschool stereoacuity test. J AAPOS. 2000; 4:354–8.

13. Fielder AR, Moseley MJ. Does stereopsis matter in humans? Eye (Lond). 1996; 10(Pt 2):233–8.

14. Fawcett SL, Wang YZ, Birch EE. The critical period for susceptibility of human stereopsis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005; 46:521–5.

15. Stathacopoulos RA, Rosenbaum AL, Zanoni D, Stager DR, McCall LC, Ziffer AJ, et al. Distance stereoacuity: assessing control in intermittent exotropia. Ophthalmology. 1993; 100:495–500.

16. Hatt SR, Gnanaraj L. Interventions for intermittent exotropia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; 2013:CD003737.

17. Birch EE, Fawcett S, Stager DR. Why does early surgical alignment improve stereoacuity outcomes in infantile esotropia? J AAPOS. 2000; 4:10–4.

18. Birch EE. Marshall Parks lecture: binocular sensory outcomes in accommodative ET. J AAPOS. 2003; 7:369–73.

19. Hornblass A, Kass LG, Ziffer AJ. Amblyopia in congenital ptosis. Ophthalmic Surg. 1995; 26:334–7.

20. Bee YS, Tsai PJ, Lin MC, Chu MY. Factors related to amblyopia in congenital ptosis after frontalis sling surgery. BMC Ophthalmol. 2018; 18:302.

21. Kushner BJA. Strabismus: practical pearls you won't find in textbooks. Springer;2017.

22. Pratt-Johnson JA, Tillson G. Sensory results following treatment of infantile esotropia. Can J Ophthalmol. 1983; 18:175–7.

23. Walker JW, Taylor D. Post operative early onset esotropia: what keeps them straight?. In : Ravault AP, Lenk M, editors. 1983 Transactions of the Fifth International Orthoptic Congress. Lips;1983. p. 183–91.

24. Keenan JM, Willshaw HE. Outcome of strabismus surgery in congenital esotropia. Br J Ophthalmol. 1992; 76:342–5.

25. Page G, Ryan H, Prior C, O’Day J. Characteristics of early onset esotropia. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol. 1993; 21:15–21.

26. Infeld D, Prior C, Ryan H, O’Day J. The long-term results of surgical correction of childhood esotropia. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol. 1993; 21:23–8.

27. Ing MR. Early surgical alignment for congenital esotropia. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1981; 79:625–63.

28. Sengpiel F, Blakemore C. The neural basis of suppression and amblyopia in strabismus. Eye (Lond). 1996; 10(Pt 2):250–8.