Baseline characteristics of children in the early glasses study.

PURPOSE: The relationship between refractive error at age 1 and the risk of developing amblyopia or accommodative esotropia, and the protection offered by early glasses, is unknown. These are determined in the Early Glasses Study, a prospective, population-based, longitudinal, randomized controlled study. We report baseline findings. METHODS: Healthy children aged 12-18 months were recruited at Children's Healthcare Centres (CHCs) and received an entry orthoptic examination followed by cycloplegic retinoscopy. Children with amblyopia, strabismus, ophthalmic disease or very high refractive error were excluded. Those exceeding the AAPOS 2003 Criteria (> + 3.5D spherical equivalent (SE), > 1.5D astigmatism, > 1.5D anisometropia) were randomized into wearing glasses or not, and are followed-up by research orthoptists. Other children are followed-up by regular vision screening at CHCs and visual acuity is measured in all children at age 4. RESULTS: Parents of 865 children were called, 123 were excluded. Of 742 children enrolled, 601 underwent the entry orthoptic examination at age 14.5 ± 1.7 months. Mean SE was + 1.73 ± 1.18D, astigmatism -0.70 ± 0.44D, anisometropia 0.21D (IQR: 0-0.25). Of 62 (10.3%) children exceeding the Criteria, 52 were randomized into wearing glasses or not. Of 539 other children, 522 are followed up at CHCs. In total, 31 were excluded: 2 had strabismus and amblyopia, 7 strabismus, 2 amblyopia suspect, 1 strabismus suspect, 1 squinting during sinusitis, 4 excessive refractive error, 9 myopia, 2 ptosis, 1 oculomotor apraxia, 1 Duane syndrome, 1 congenital nystagmus. CONCLUSION: Prevalence of strabismus (10/601) was as expected, but prevalence of amblyopia (2/601) was low, suggesting that common amblyopia develops later than generally thought. KEY MESSAGES: What is known • High refractive errors cause amblyopia, but no study has determined the exact relationship between the kind and size of refractive error at age 1 and the risk to develop amblyopia, and assessed the protective effect of glasses in a controlled, population-based, longitudinal study. What is new • At baseline, 601 children received a full orthoptic examination followed by retinoscopy in cycloplegia at the age of 14.5 ± 1.7 months; 10.3% had high refractive error exceeding spherical equivalent > + 3.5D, > 1.5D astigmatism, > 1D oblique astigmatism or > 1.5D anisometropia. • The prevalence of amblyopia was lower (0.3%) than expected, suggesting that most amblyopia develops after the first year of life. • The prevalence of anisometropia, associated with amblyopia in older children, was low (0.8%).

Timing of surgery for primary exotropia in children.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the postoperative alignment and sensory functions in patients with primary exotropia who had been operated at an early age (< 7 years) with those in patients who had been operated at an older age (> 7 years). METHODS: In a consecutive retrospective cohort study, 112 patients who had had a surgical intervention for primary exotropia between 1997 and 2003 were evaluated for postoperative results. After applying criteria for eligibility, the group of patients was divided into two groups: those who had had surgery before the age of seven years (n = 24) and those who had had surgery after the age of seven years (n = 36). Age at surgery, preoperative alignment and sensory functions were correlated with the postoperative status. The follow-up was at least one year (1.0 year to 7 years; median: 2.3 and 3.5 years, respectively). RESULTS: Patients who had had surgery before the age of seven had significantly better alignment and sensory functions. The univariate logistic regression model confirmed a statistically significant association between motor outcome (exodeviation less than 10 diopters) and age at the time of surgery (before or after the age of seven; p = 0.002). In the multivariate model, the association between age at time of surgery and motor outcome was even stronger. The number of re-operations in the group operated before the age of 7 years was significantly less than in the group operated after the age of seven (2 versus 12, p = 0.023). CONCLUSION: The postoperative alignment and sensory functions for patients with primary exotropia who had had a surgical intervention before the age of seven years were, in this study, better than those in patients who had had surgery after the age of seven years.

Timing of surgery for primary exotropia in children.

OBJECTIVE: To compare postoperative alignment and sensory functions in children with primary exotropia who were operated at an early age (< 7 years) with patients who were operated at an older age (> 7 years). METHODS: In a consecutive retrospective cohort study, 112 patients who had a surgical intervention for primary exotropia between 1997 and 2003 were evaluated for postoperative results. After applying criteria for eligibility, the group of patients was divided into two groups: those who had surgical intervention before the age of seven years (n = 24) and those who had surgery after the age of seven years (n = 36). Age at surgery, preoperative alignment and sensory functions were correlated with the postoperative status. The follow-up was at least one year (1.0 year to 7 years; median: 2.3 and 3.5 years, respectively). RESULTS: Children who had surgery before the age of seven had significantly better alignment and sensory functions. The univariate logistic regression model confirmed a statistically significant association between motor outcome (exodeviation less than 10 prism-diopters) and age at the time of surgery (before or after the age of seven; p = 0.002). In the multivariate model, the association between age at time of surgery and motor outcome was even stronger. The number of reoperations in the group operated before the age of 7 years was significantly less than in the group operated after the age of seven (2 versus 12, p = 0.023). CONCLUSION: The postoperative alignment and sensory functions in patients with primary exotropia who had surgical intervention before the age of seven years were, in this study, better than in patients who had surgery after the age of seven years.

Implementation of an Educational Cartoon ("the Patchbook") and Other Compliance-Enhancing Measures by Orthoptists in Occlusion Treatment of Amblyopia.

PURPOSE: This implementation study evaluated orthoptists' use of an educational cartoon ("the Patchbook") and other measures to improve compliance with occlusion therapy for amblyopia. METHODS: Participating orthoptists provided standard orthoptic care for one year, adding the Patchbook in the second year. They attended courses on compliance and intercultural communication by communication skills training. Many other compliance-enhancing measures were initiated. Orthoptists' awareness, attitude, and activities regarding noncompliance were assessed through interviews, questionnaires, and observations. Their use of the Patchbook was measured. The study was performed in low socio-economic status (SES) areas and in other areas in the Netherlands. It was attempted to integrate education on compliance into basic and continuing orthoptic training. RESULTS: The Patchbook was used by all 9 orthoptists who participated in low-SES areas and 17 of 23 orthoptists in other areas. Courses changed awareness and attitude about compliance, but this was not sustained. Although orthoptists estimated compliance during patching at 70%, three-quarters never suspected noncompliance during a full day of observation in any of their patients. Explanations to parents who spoke Dutch poorly were short. In the second year, explanations to children were longer. Implementation of all 7 additional compliance-enhancing measures failed. Education on compliance was not integrated into orthoptists' training. CONCLUSION: Almost all orthoptists used the Patchbook and, as another study demonstrated, it proved to be very effective, especially in low-SES areas. Duration of explanation was inversely proportional to parents' fluency in Dutch. Noncompliance was rarely suspected by orthoptists. Although 7 additional compliance-enhancing measures had been conceived and planned with the best intentions, they were not realized. These required extra, unpaid time from the orthoptists, which is especially scarce in hospitals in low-SES areas where the educational cartoon is most needed.

How Dutch orthoptists deal with noncompliance with occlusion therapy for amblyopia.

BACKGROUND: We previously found that compliance with occlusion therapy for amblyopia is poor, especially among children of non-native parents who spoke Dutch poorly and who were low educated. We investigated conception, awareness, attitude, and actions to deal with noncompliance among Dutch orthoptists. METHODS: Orthoptists working in non-native, low socioeconomic status (SES) areas and a selection of orthoptists working elsewhere in the Netherlands were studied. They were observed in their practice, received a structured questionnaire, and underwent a semi-structured interview. Finally, a short survey was sent to all working orthoptists in the Netherlands. RESULTS: Nine orthoptists working in non-native, low-SES areas and 23 working elsewhere in the Netherlands participated. One hundred and fifty-one orthoptists returned the short survey. Major discrepancies existed in conception, awareness, and attitude. Opinions differed on what should be defined as noncompliance and on what causes noncompliance. Some orthoptists found noncompliance annoying, unpleasant, and hard to imagine, others were more understanding. Many pitied the noncompliant child. Almost all thought that the success of occlusion therapy lies both with the parents and the orthoptist, but one third thought that noncompliance was not solely their responsibility. Patients' compliance was estimated at 69.3% in non-native, low-SES areas (electronically, 52% had been measured), at 74.1% by the other 23 orthoptists, and at 73.8% in the short survey. Actions to improve compliance were diverse; some increased occlusion hours whereas others decreased them. In non-native, low-SES areas, 22% spoke Dutch moderately to none; the allotted time for a patient's first visit was 21'; the time spent on explaining to the parents was 2'30" and to the child 10". In practices of the other 23 orthoptists, 6% spoke Dutch moderately to none (P<0.0001), the time for a patient's first visit was 27'24" (P=0.47), and the periods spent explaining were 2'51" (P=0.59) and 26" (P=0.17), respectively. CONCLUSION: Conception, awareness, attitude, and actions to deal with noncompliance varied among orthoptists. In non-native, low-SES areas, time spent on explanation was shorter, despite a lower fluency in Dutch among the parents.