Distance Stereoacuity

Stathacopoulos, Rena A.; Rosenbaum, Arthur L.; Zanoni, Diana; Stager, David R.; McCall, Laurie C.; Ziffer, Anne J.; Everett, Mary

doi:10.1016/s0161-6420(93)31616-7

Cited by 139 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Differences between distance and near stereoacuity have been suggested to approximate control in IXT given that distance stereoacuity seems to deteriorate more often in patients with poor control. 7,20 There was no significant difference in mean BiS in the distance-near stereoacuity disparity groups. This may be due to a true difference in the outcome that these two scales measure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Binocular Summation and Control of Intermittent Exotropia

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Binocular summation (BiS), or improvement in binocular vision exceeding the better eye alone, is affected by strabismus. Being easily measured, BiS may be a useful indicator for subjective outcomes like stereopsis in strabismus. This study aims to investigate the relationship between BiS and measures of control of intermittent exotropia (IXT). Methods: Patients with IXT were recruited before undergoing strabismus surgery and underwent tests of binocular and monocular high and low contrast visual acuity, stereopsis at distance and near, and Newcastle Score (NCS), a score developed by incorporating home control and clinic control criteria into a control rating scale. BiS was calculated using high-contrast Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) and Sloan low-contrast acuity charts (LCA) at 2.5% and 1.25% contrast as the difference between the binocular score and that of the better eye. The relationship between BiS and measures of IXT control (NCS and distance near stereoacuity disparity) was evaluated using a correlation analysis by Spearman correlation coefficients and the Kruskal-Wallis test. Results: Thirty-four patients were included (mean [± standard deviation (SD)] age 19±16years) having a mean (± SD) of 26±16Δ IXT at distance and 20±16Δ at near. Mean (± SD) BiS for ETDRS and Sloan LCA at 2.5% and 1.25% was 0.8±3.6, 1.9±6.0 and −2.3±7.2, respectively. The Spearman correlation coefficient of BiS and NCS was −0.53 (95% CI −0.85 to −0.25) for 2.5% LCA and −0.43 (95% CI −0.77 to −0.13) for 1.25% LCA. BiS at 2.5% LCA (p=0.006) and at 1.25% LCA (p=0.029) significantly differed between the groups based on NCS score groupings (1–3, 4–6, and 7–9), with patients who had better control scores having higher levels of BiS. BiS did not differ significantly between patients grouped according to the difference between stereoacuity measured at near versus distance. Conclusion: Significantly lower low contrast BiS in patients with higher NCS may suggest that decreased BiS is associated with less control in IXT. This finding suggests that BiS may reflect control in IXT across a population of patients with IXT.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Binocular Summation and Control of Intermittent Exotropia

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Normal use of the eyes together at near fixation (binocular single vision (BSV)) and normal near stereoacuity (three dimensional vision or depth perception) can usually be demonstrated when the exotropia is controlled (Holmes 2007; O’Neal 1995; Stathacopoulos 1993; Yildirim 2000). However, a proportion of people with X(T) demonstrate subnormal BSV and reduced near stereoacuity due to monofixation syndrome (23% Baker 1979; 31% Beneish 1994; 11.3% Yildirim 2000; and in another study, between 36% and 55% depending on the test used Hatt 2010a), a feature that is recognised to be part of the spectrum of the disease.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These data provide guidelines for evaluating change in angle over time. Data in children with esotropia have been reported (PEDIG 2008) but may not translate to children with X(T) as there may be greater variability in the underlying condition.Control: recently developed control scales enable quantification of ability to control the exodeviation at a given point in time (Chia 2005; Haggerty 2004; Mohney 2006; Petrunak 2004; Stathacopoulos 1993). However considerable variation in control is now known to occur (Hatt 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However considerable variation in control is now known to occur (Hatt 2007). Parental observations are often used and are incorporated into some control scales (Haggerty 2004; Stathacopoulos 1993). However these non-standardised observations will vary depending on how much time a parent spends with their child etc.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A recent study by Holmes et al (Holmes 2011) reported infrequent deterioration of near stereoacuity in a cohort of children with X(T). More recently, distance stereoacuity testing has increasingly become part of clinical assessment, with deterioration in or loss of distance stereoacuity suggested as a sign of increased severity (O’Neal 1995; Stathacopoulos 1993; Yildirim 1999). Of note, distance stereoacuity may measure as either normal or subnormal in patients with X(T) depending on the test used (Holmes 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Interventions for intermittent exotropia

Hatt

Gnanaraj

2013

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The clinical management of intermittent exotropia has been discussed extensively in the literature, yet there remains a lack of clarity regarding indications for intervention, the most effective form of treatment and whether or not there is an optimal time in the evolution of the disease at which any treatment should be carried out. Objectives The objective of this review was to analyse the effects of various surgical and non-surgical treatments in randomised trials of participants with intermittent exotropia, and to report intervention criteria and determine the significance of factors such as age with respect to outcome. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2012), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to May 2012), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to May 2012), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 4 May 2012. We are no longer searching the UK Clinical Trials Gateway (UKCTG) for this review. We manually searched the British Orthoptic Journal up to 2002, and the proceedings of the European Strabismological Association (ESA), International Strabismological Association (ISA) and American Academy of Paediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus meeting (AAPOS) up to 2001. We contacted researchers who are active in the field for information about further published or unpublished studies. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials of any surgical or non-surgical treatment for intermittent exotropia. Data collection and analysis Each review author independently assessed study abstracts identified from the electronic and manual searches. Author analysis was then compared and full papers for appropriate studies were obtained. Main results We found one randomised trial that was eligible for inclusion. This trial showed that unilateral surgery was more effective than bilateral surgery for correcting the basic type of intermittent exotropia. Authors’ conclusions The available literature consists mainly of retrospective case reviews, which are difficult to reliably interpret and analyse. The one randomised trial included found unilateral surgery more effective than bilateral surgery for basic intermittent exotropia. However, across all identified studies, measures of severity and thus criteria for intervention are poorly validated, and there appear to be no reliable natural history data. There is therefore a pressing need for improved measures of severity, a better understanding of the natural history and carefully planned clinical trials of treatment to improve the e...

show abstract