Dioptric differences between clinically determined and metric-optimised refractions for adults with Down syndrome.

PURPOSE: Refractions based on the optimisation of single-value wavefront-derived metrics may help determine appropriate corrections for individuals with Down syndrome where clinical techniques fall short. This study compared dioptric differences between refractions obtained using standard clinical techniques and two metric-optimised methods: visual Strehl ratio (VSX) and pupil fraction tessellated (PFSt), and investigated characteristics that may contribute to the differences between refraction types. METHODS: Thirty adults with Down syndrome (age = 29 ± 10 years) participated. Three refractive corrections (VSX, PFSt and clinical) were determined and converted to vector notation (M, J0 , J45 ) to calculate the dioptric difference between pairings of each type using a mixed model repeated measures approach. Linear correlations and multivariable regression were performed to examine the relationship between dioptric differences and the following participant characteristics: higher order root mean square (RMS) for a 4 mm pupil diameter, spherical equivalent refractive error and Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (a measure of developmental ability). RESULTS: The least squares mean estimates (standard error) of the dioptric differences for each pairing were as follows: VSX versus PFSt = 0.51 D (0.11); VSX versus clinical = 1.19 D (0.11) and PFSt versus clinical = 1.04 D (0.11). There was a statistically significant difference in the dioptric differences between the clinical refraction and each of the metric-optimised refractions (p < 0.001). Increased dioptric differences in refraction were correlated with increased higher order RMS (R = 0.64, p < 0.001 [VSX vs. clinical] and R = 0.47, p < 0.001 [PFSt vs. clinical]) as well as increased myopic spherical equivalent refractive error (R = 0.37, p = 0.004 [VSX vs. clinical] and R = 0.51, p < 0.001 [PFSt vs. clinical]). CONCLUSIONS: The observed differences in refraction demonstrate that a significant portion of the refractive uncertainty is related to increased higher order aberrations and myopic refractive error. Methodology surrounding clinical techniques and metric-optimisation based on wavefront aberrometry may explain the difference in refractive endpoints.

Does coexisting accommodative dysfunction impact clinical convergence measures, symptoms and treatment success for symptomatic convergence insufficiency in children?

PURPOSE: To determine whether coexisting accommodative dysfunction in children with symptomatic convergence insufficiency (CI) impacts presenting clinical convergence measures, symptoms and treatment success for CI. METHODS: Secondary data analyses of monocular accommodative amplitude (AA; push-up method), monocular accommodative facility (AF; ±2.00 D lens flippers) and symptoms (CI Symptom Survey [CISS]) in children with symptomatic CI from the Convergence Insufficiency Treatment Trial (N = 218) and CITT-Attention and Reading Trial (N = 302) were conducted. Decreased AA was defined as more than 2D below the minimum expected amplitude for age (15 - » age); those with AA < 5 D were excluded. Decreased AF was defined as <6 cycles per minute. Mean near point of convergence (NPC), near positive fusional vergence (PFV) and symptoms (CISS) were compared between those with and without accommodative dysfunction using analysis of variance and independent samples t-testing. Logistic regression was used to compare the effect of baseline accommodative function on treatment success [defined using a composite of improvements in: (1) clinical convergence measures and symptoms (NPC, PFV and CISS scores) or (2) solely convergence measures (NPC and PFV)]. RESULTS: Accommodative dysfunction was common in children with symptomatic CI (55% had decreased AA; 34% had decreased AF). NPC was significantly worse in those with decreased AA (mean difference = 6.1 cm; p < 0.001). Mean baseline CISS scores were slightly worse in children with coexisting accommodative dysfunction (decreased AA or AF) (30.2 points) than those with normal accommodation (26.9 points) (mean difference = 3.3 points; p < 0.001). Neither baseline accommodative function (p ≥ 0.12 for all) nor interaction of baseline accommodative function and treatment (p ≥ 0.50) were related to treatment success based on the two composite outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: A coexisting accommodative dysfunction in children with symptomatic CI is associated with worse NPC, but it does not impact the severity of symptoms in a clinically meaningful way. Concurrent accommodative dysfunction does not impact treatment response for CI.

Negative Fusional Vergence Is Abnormal in Children with Symptomatic Convergence Insufficiency.

SIGNIFICANCE: Deficits of disparity divergence found with objective eye movement recordings may not be apparent with standard clinical measures of negative fusional vergence (NFV) in children with symptomatic convergence insufficiency. PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine whether NFV is normal in untreated children with symptomatic convergence insufficiency and whether NFV improves after vergence/accommodative therapy. METHODS: This secondary analysis of NFV measures before and after office-based vergence/accommodative therapy reports changes in (1) objective eye movement recording responses to 4° disparity divergence step stimuli from 12 children with symptomatic convergence insufficiency compared with 10 children with normal binocular vision (NBV) and (2) clinical NFV measures in 580 children successfully treated in three Convergence Insufficiency Treatment Trial studies. RESULTS: At baseline, the Convergence Insufficiency Treatment Trial cohort's mean NFV break (14.6 ± 4.8Δ) and recovery (10.6 ± 4.2Δ) values were significantly greater (P < .001) than normative values. The post-therapy mean improvements for blur, break, and recovery of 5.2, 7.2, and 1.3Δ, respectively, were statistically significant (P < .0001). Mean pre-therapy responses to 4° disparity divergence step stimuli were worse in the convergence insufficiency group compared with the NBV group for peak velocity (P < .001), time to peak velocity (P = .01), and response amplitude (P < .001). After therapy, the convergence insufficiency group showed statistically significant improvements in mean peak velocity (11.63°/s; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.6 to 16.62°/s), time to peak velocity (-0.12 seconds; 95% CI, -0.19 to -0.05 seconds), and response amplitude (1.47°; 95% CI, 0.83 to 2.11°), with measures no longer statistically different from the NBV cohort (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite clinical NFV measurements that seem greater than normal, children with symptomatic convergence insufficiency may have deficient NFV when measured with objective eye movement recordings. Both objective and clinical measures of NFV can be improved with vergence/accommodative therapy.

Refining Clinical Quantification of Depth of Suppression in Amblyopia through Synoptophore Measurement.

BACKGROUND: Amblyopia is associated with unbalanced suppression between the two eyes. Existing clinical measures of suppression, such as the Worth 4 Dot test, provide qualitative information about suppression but cannot precisely quantify it. The Synoptophore, a well-established instrument in binocular vision clinics, has historically been used to gauge suppression qualitatively as well but has the capability to quantify suppression. We extended the capability of the Synoptophore through the development of a systematic protocol of illumination manipulation to quantify suppression in amblyopia. METHODS: Twenty-six previously treated adult amblyopes underwent our protocol on the Synoptophore to measure the illumination balance needed to obtain fusion responses. Separately, these same amblyopes were tested with Worth 4 Dot as it is classically performed in the United States, utilizing different test distances and room illuminations to qualify the suppression response. RESULTS: Smaller, more central targets revealed larger magnitudes of suppression for both the Synoptophore and Worth 4 Dot tests (Synoptophore: χ25,26 = 25.538, p < 0.001; Worth 4 Dot: χ23,26 = 39.020, p < 0.001). There was a significant correlation between the two tests for depth of suppression measurements (rΤ > 0.345, p < 0.036), with more sensitivity measured by the Synoptophore, as suppression could be graded on a quantitative scale. Strabismic amblyopes demonstrated more suppression than non-strabismic amblyopes (z > 2.410, p < 0.016). Additionally, depth of suppression was correlated with interocular difference in both visual acuity (rΤ = 0.604, p < 0.001) and stereoacuity (rΤ = 0.488, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We extended the utility of the Synoptophore by measuring its illuminance outputs and developing a suppression testing protocol that compared favorably with Worth 4 Dot (clinic standard) while improving upon the latter through more sensitive quantification of suppression.