Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 16631913

Amblyopia.

Abstract

Results from recent randomised clinical trials in amblyopia should change our approach to screening for and treatment of amblyopia. Based on the current evidence, if one screening session is used, screening at school entry could be the most reasonable time. Clinicians should preferably use age-appropriate LogMAR acuity tests, and treatment should only be considered for children who are clearly not in the typical range for their age. Any substantial refractive error should be corrected before further treatment is considered and the child should be followed in spectacles until no further improvement is recorded, which can take up to 6 months. Parents and carers should then be offered an informed choice between patching and atropine drops. Successful patching regimens can last as little as 1 h or 2 h a day, and successful atropine regimens as little as one drop twice a week. Intense and extended regimens might not be needed in initial therapy.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jonathan M Holmes, Michael P Clarke. 2006-04-22. Amblyopia.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(06)68581-4

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Genome-Wide and Rare Variant Association Studies of Amblyopia in Admixed American and African Ancestry Groups.

OBJECTIVE: To identify genetic variants associated with amblyopia in African (AFR) and Admixed American (AMR) ancestry groups, expanding on previous studies conducted in European ancestry. DESIGN: Retrospective ancestry-stratified genome-wide association study (GWAS) and gene-level rare variant association study (RVAS). PARTICIPANTS: Participants in the All of Us Research Program from AFR and AMR ancestry groups who had whole-genome sequencing available. Cases and controls were distinguished based on the presence of International Classification of Diseases 9/10/SNOMED diagnosis codes for amblyopia in electronic health records. This yielded ancestry-stratified subsets of 269 cases and 71 585 controls of AMR ancestry and 366 cases and 79 460 controls of AFR ancestry. METHODS: Stratified logistic regression models were adjusted for age, biological sex, and the top 10 principal components of genomic ancestry. GWAS was limited to common variants (minor allele frequency &#x2265;1%), and RVAS was limited to rare variants with coding sequence-altering effects (minor allele frequency >1%, exonic only, excluding synonymous variants) aggregated at the gene level using the SKAT algorithm. Downstream analyses of the significant variants were performed using KEGG and GO pathway analysis and STRING database queries for protein-protein interactions and gene-gene interactions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Single-nucleotide polymorphisms were determined to have genome-wide significance if P < 5e-8 in the GWAS, and genes were determined to have significant association with amblyopia in the RVAS if P < 8.0 &#xd7; 10-4. RESULTS: In the AMR GWAS, 245 unique single-nucleotide polymorphisms mapping to 97 distinct loci were identified, notably within neurodevelopmental and axonal guidance genes, including ROBO1, SEMA4B, PTPRD, NRXN1, and CAMK2D. The AFR GWAS identified 11 significant variants corresponding to 6 loci mapping primarily to long noncoding RNAs and pseudogenes. The AMR RVAS identified 15 genes, including axonal transport genes (KIF1B and KIF7) and growth factor signaling genes (EGF, ERBIN, and AKAP17A). The AFR RVAS identified a single gene, DLG2, which encodes the postsynaptic protein PSD-93, which promotes the closure of the sensitive period of neuroplasticity for vision in early childhood. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic risk architectures for amblyopia differ across ancestries but fundamentally converge on neurodevelopmental signaling, cortical synapse assembly, and sensitive period plasticity rather than ocular structural dynamics. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): The authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Amblyopia↗

Factors affecting the stability of visual function following cessation of occlusion therapy for amblyopia.

AIM: To identify factors that predict which children with amblyopia are at greatest risk of regression of visual acuity (VA) following the cessation of occlusion therapy. METHOD: A retrospective analysis was performed of 182 children (mean age at cessation of treatment; 5.9+/-1.6 years) who had undergone occlusion therapy for unilateral amblyopia, and had been followed up at least once within 15 months of cessation. Statistical analysis was used to identify whether change in VA following treatment cessation had any association with various factors, including the child's age, type of amblyopia, degree of anisometropia, initial severity of amblyopia, binocular vision status, length and dose of occlusion therapy, and VA response to treatment. RESULTS: At 1 year, follow-up from treatment cessation, children with "mixed" amblyopia (both anisometropia and strabismus) demonstrated significantly (p=0.03) greater deterioration in VA (0.11+/-0.11 log units) than children with only anisometropia (0.02+/-0.08 log units) or only strabismus (0.05+/-0.10 log units). However, none of the other factors investigated were found to be significant predictors. CONCLUSION: This study supports previous research that it is possible to identify those children most at risk of deterioration in VA following cessation of occlusion therapy. The presence of mixed amblyopia was the only risk factor identified in this study. Management of amblyopia should take this into account, with a more intensive follow-up recommended for those with both anisometropia and strabismus (mixed) amblyopia.

Amblyopia↗

The global processing deficit in amblyopia involves noise segregation.

Some studies have reported deficits in amblyopia for global form and motion integration, whereas other studies have shown global integration of form and motion information to be normal in amblyopia. Here, we attempt to resolve this discrepancy by showing that amblyopes only exhibit selective performance deficits on global tasks that contain noise as well as signal. We hypothesized that signal integration is normal, but noise segregation is not. We used comparable global orientation and motion direction discrimination tasks to measure integration performance in the presence of controlled amounts of pedestal noise (i.e., elements whose orientations or directions were randomly selected). We modelled the performance using an equivalent noise model, which has the parameters of internal noise and number of samples. Our results show that amblyopic eyes can integrate form (i.e., orientation) and motion information (i.e., motion direction) similarly to normals when all the information is signal (i.e., no pedestal noise). However, introducing pedestal noise perturbs the performance of the amblyopic eyes significantly more than that of the normal eyes.

Amblyopia↗