Dichoptic Rescue for Spectacle-Flip Sabotage of Anisometropic Amblyopia Therapy.

Background: To be successful, amblyopia therapeutic techniques must respond when ingenious (shrewd) amblyopic children sabotage treatment effect by discovering ways(1) to alter those therapy aspects they find frustrating. Methods: Her guardian consented to IRB-approved study outside typical FDA enrollment guidelines for CureSight dichoptic therapy. Acuity (EVA) and stereopsis was by PEDIG protocols. Results: A 6-year-old rural Alaska native girl in foster care had previously been diagnosed with anisometropic amblyopia and treated with spectacles and patching but had poor compliance with BCVA 0.9-1.0 logMAR. She demonstrated exceptional creativity and hyperactivity but had no other medical issues. Atropine was prescribed in addition to her spectacles +5.50+1.00x90 and +0.50+1.00x90, but the patient discovered the rare "Spectacle Flip" method that sabotaged therapeutic impact. She had EVA enrollment acuities of logMAR 0.9 right and -0.1 left with stereo 400 seconds of arc. After just one month dichoptic therapy 1.5 hours 6 days per week, acuity improved to logMAR 0.7 and -0.1 with stereo up to 140 second of arc. Four months later acuity was 0.6 right and -0.2 left. Stereoacuity improved from 400 to 200 arc seconds. Conclusion: Even when conventional compliance methods fail, dichoptic therapy with eye-tracking has the novel and unique potential to improve amblyopia treatment compliance with real-time monitored fixation compliance and confirmation of correct spectacle wear. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT06165705.

Dichoptic therapy with eye-tracking improved compliance and achieved de novo acuity and stereo gains in a girl with severe refractory anisometropic amblyopia compounded by the rare complication of topical atropine therapy called "spectacle-flip sabotage".

Pre-Cycloplegic Exam Benefit of Photoscreening and Accommodation-Relaxing Skiascopy.

Background: Seeking a quick way to estimate refractions for challenging pediatric patients, we studied two non-contact methods with particular attention to accuracy and level of stress in uncovering cycloplegic hyperopia. Methods: Newly referred and follow-up pediatric eye patients had timed school bus accommodation-relaxing skiascopy (SBARS) and Plusoptix A12 (Px) photoscreener testing before cyclopentolate 1% confirmatory examinations. The ABCD ellipsoid univariate method based on relative blur and vector components was used to compare dry sphero-cylinder refraction estimates with cycloplegic. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine screening value. Results: Three compared refractions were attempted in 191 racially diverse children of whom 100 were age 0.2-3.9 years and 91 were 4 to 14 years. Plusoptix failed to yield a result in 21 and an additional 21 were interpreted as an excess sphere. Median spherical equivalent did not differ between Px and SBARS for 149 with Px readings but in hyperopic patients, Plusoptix uncovered 27% less hyperopia. The ellipsoid for SBARS of 0.8 was better than 2.4 for Plusoptix (Mann-Whitney p<0.001). Plusoptix was fastest (3-15 seconds) followed by SBARS (15-30 seconds) compared to 30-45 minutes for cycloplegic exam. Conclusion: Non-contact quick refractive methods enhanced confirmatory cycloplegic pediatric exam in high-risk pediatric patients.

Agreement in non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction between a photoscreener and a calibrated autorefractor.

INTRODUCTION: Photoscreeners have been shown to provide excellent measurements of the refractive error. However, whether they could be used for assessing cycloplegic refraction has not been examied. This study aimed to evaluate the agreement between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic measurements obtained using a photoscreener and stationary autorefractor, respectively. METHODS: This study included all patients undergoing routine ophthalmic examination at the Hygeia Clinic (Poland) from June to July 2022. Each patient underwent non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction assessments using the 2WIN photoscreener (Adaptica SRL, Padova, Italy) and an ARK-1 stationary autorefractor ARK-1 (Nidek Co Ltd., Tokyo, Japan), respectively. Each pair of assessments was conducted in random order, and all values were determined at a vertical distance of 12 mm. The agreement between cycloplegic and non-cycloplegic measurements was assessed using paired t-tests, Bland-Altman and ABCD ellipsoids. RESULTS: This analysis included 82 patients, of which 52 were female. Their mean age was 34.39 ± 13.13 years. The non-cycloplegic spherical equivalent (SE) did not differ significantly between the 2WIN (- 1.22 ± 2.45) and ARK-1 (- 1.19 ± 2.96) devices (p = 0.580). However, the cycloplegic SE values demonstrated more negative values with the 2WIN device (- 1.13 ± 2.19) than with the ARK-1 device (- 0.75 ± 3.03; p = 0.007). The non-cycloplegic and cycloplegic measurements were strongly correlated between the devices (r = 0.9473 and 0.9411, respectively). However, the correlation between their cycloplegic shifts in SE was low (r = 0.2645). Ellipsoid refraction aligned better non-cycloplegic (ARK-1 = 1.00; 2WIN = 1.74) than with cycloplegic refraction (ARK-1 = 1.43; 2WIN = 1.90). CONCLUSION: While the cycloplegic measurements obtained with the 2WIN photoscreener were strongly correlated with those obtained with the ARK-1 stationary autorefractor for most of the analyzed parameters, they should not be considered interchangeable.

Compared Methods for Reducing Stress in ROP Exams; Stake-Holding Examiner Perspective.

Purpose: To better understand the sensory impact of retinal exam components typically experienced by infants undergoing various retinopathy of prematurity staging examinations, adults concerned for infant welfare and exam quality underwent similar exams to compare their perceived stress. Patients and Methods: Adults directly involved with ROP exams and infant stress reduction had cardiac monitoring and concomitant ordinal self symptom-score (1-10 Likert) during 15 components of the exam including lid speculum, various scleral depressors, indirect ophthalmoscopy, goniolens and direct ophthalmoscopy and retinal photography (Phoenix ICON) with or without topical anesthesia. Results: Nine adults provided impressions and cardiac rhythm gathered supine over 15 minutes. Pain score for topical anesthetic 2 was less than for tropicamide 4. Lid specula numb scored a median 2 level (from 1 to 10) pain but without anesthetic scored 6. The goniolens numb scored 3. Scleral depression numb scored 3-4 but increased to 7 without topical anesthesia. Direct ophthalmoscope scored 3 through the goniolens and the retinal camera scored 4 pain. Brightness with low 350 Lux indirect scored 6-8 numb and 9 brightness without anesthetic. Full bright indirect, direct ophthalmoscope and the retinal camera all had Lux of 3000-4000 and were scored brightness 9, 7 and 10, respectively. Adults had minimal oculocardiac reflex during on-globe retinal examination methods (range 98% to 102%). Conclusion: Topical anesthesia provided a moderate reduction in pain during on-globe lid-speculum, scleral depressed indirect examination. There was a synergistic augmented sensory response between pain and brightness. Adults did not show the bradycardia typically elicited by retinal examinations in premature infants.

Acuity Comparison Methods via Timed Test-Retest Precision of Matching-Card e-ETDRS Compared to PDI Check in Treated Amblyopes and Superb Normals.

Purpose: Existing and emerging visual acuity methods like dynamic and dichoptic presentation, preferential looking and eye tracking promise to afford better and earlier assessment in children with and without amblyopia so we propose methods needed to easily evaluate and compare their metrics. Subjects and Methods: Patients older than 8 years with treated amblyopia and superb vision (logMAR -0.1 to -0.3) normals performed timed, patched eETDRS with Sloan matching card at 3.00 m and PDI Check dichoptic near rivalry dynamic test to demonstrate test re-Test and compared disparate acuity with intraclass correlation (ICC) and Bland Altman 95% limits of agreement (LOA) to generate a simple method of qualifying acuity test matching. Results: 26 amblyopic patients and 11 superb-vision normals performed eETDRS retest, PDI Check retest and combined ICC of 0.98, 0.60 and 0.27, respectively, and Bland Altman LOA of 0.24, 2.06 and 2.28 logMAR. The time to test one eye with eETDRS had median (interquartile range; IQR) duration of 280 (205 to 346) seconds, while the PDI Check autostereoscopic dichoptic for both eyes only took 39 (30 to 47) seconds. Optimum ICC and LOA for visual acuity comparison should be >0.95 and <0.3 logMAR, whereas "good" ICC and should be 0.75-0.89 ICC and 1.0-1.49 logMAR LOA. Conclusion: Superb vision subjects (logMAR < -0.1) and treated amblyopic patients confirmed optimum comparable eETDRS, and fair test re-Test PDI Check but suppression on near dichoptic testing confirmed disparity compared to optimized eETDRS distance acuity.

Comparative Validation of PlusoptiX and AI-Optic Photoscreeners in Children with High Amblyopia Risk Factor Prevalence.

Purpose: In 2022, an inexpensive multi-radial infrared photoscreener, the AI Optic was released in a similar format as the 2012 PlusoptiX a-12 but utilizing artificial intelligence (AI) for online, central image interpretation. We studied them because no prior comparative validation concerning amblyopia risk factors and particularly refractive error has been done. Patients and Methods: Children from a pediatric ophthalmology practice had AI Optic and PlusoptiX-a12 photoscreen concomitantly during comprehensive examination with precisely measured strabismus and refraction. Validation to AAPOS 2021 and 2013 guidelines was evaluated with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves while refractive estimates were compared by the ABCD ellipsoid univariable technique. Results: In 200 ethnically diverse children aged 1-18, 148 were 4 years or older, 35% had developmental delays, and 2/3 had amblyopia risk factors (ARF). Area under the ROC curve (AUC) targeting AAPOS 2021 refractive plus strabismus for age ≥4 years was 0.58 for AI Optic and 0.74 for PlusoptiX while for children <4 years, AUC was 0.53 for AI Optic and 0.72 for PlusoptiX. For 134 comparable sphero-cylinder refractions, the ABCD Ellipsoid median (interquartile ranges) for AI Optic right eye 2.53 (1.54, 4.01) and left eye 3.05 (1.83, 5.00) did not approximate actual refraction as well as by PlusoptiX right eye 1.88 (1.12, 2.86) and left eye 2.10 (1.26, 3.04) Mann Whitney z=3.7 right and 4.2 left, p<0.001 each. AI Optic via central "AI" reading gave sphero-cylinder and referral estimates in all but 16 of 200 high risk children whereas Plusoptix had 25 inconclusives. On the other hand, with inconclusives scored as a refer, Plusoptix outperformed AI Optic in terms of ARF validation and refractive estimate. Conclusion: Plusoptix provided more valid amblyopia and refractive screening than the cheaper AI Optic. Clinics must weigh cost versus performance, and central data sharing before selecting one of these vision-saving devices.

Parent-provided photographs as an outcome measure for childhood chalazia.

PURPOSE: To determine whether smartphone photographs of children's eyelids are reliable for diagnosing the presence of chalazia. METHODS: In this prospective cross-sectional study, 60 participants, 7 months to 16.5 years of age, at four sites were enrolled; all participants had a chalazion measuring at least 2 mm on at least one eyelid based on an in-person clinical examination by a pediatric eye care professional. Smartphone photographs taken by the parent during the office visit were uploaded to the study website. A masked reader assessed each photograph for the presence or absence of chalazia; results were compared with the gold standard clinical examination results. Sensitivity and specificity for the presence of chalazion by eyelid were calculated. RESULTS: Photographs were available for 240 eyelids; 85 had at least one chalazion and 155 were without a chalazion based on clinical examination. The masked reader correctly classified 68 of 85 eyelids with at least one chalazion and 151 of 155 eyelids without chalazia for a sensitivity of 80% (95% CI, 72%-86%) and a specificity of 97% (95% CI, 94%-99%). Sensitivity improved to 89% for chalazia 5 mm or larger and 94% when superficially located within the eyelid. CONCLUSIONS: Parental smartphone photographs appear to be useful in assessing chalazia in children as an alternative to in-office follow-up examinations. These photographs may be a valuable outcome measure in future clinical trials of chalazia treatment, especially when assessing larger lesions.

Pediatric Non-Refractive Vision Screening with EyeSwift, PDI Check and Blinq: Non-Refractive Vision Screening with Two Binocular Video Games and Birefringent Scanning.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this paper is to validate three recent non-refractive devices that target sensory and/or strabismus risk factors for amblyopia. EyeSwift® with eye tracking and PDI Check on autostereoscopic Nintendo 3DS are video games that estimate acuity, binocularity and color. The Rebion blinq assesses foveation by birefringence. METHODS: Students were consented to be screened by each device as if by a school nurse before confirmatory examination with optimized, refined refraction. Results were compared with correlation and Bland Altman plots while screening ability was compared with 2021 AAPOS Guidelines and the strabismus-amblyopia rubric proposed by David Hunter. RESULTS: A total of 77 ethnically diverse students, aged 11±4 (4-19) years had a 77% prevalence of 2021 risk factors. Near visual acuity, inter-eye difference and stereopsis correlated significantly (p<0.01) for the EyeSwift® (r2 0.14, 0.06 and 0.45) and PDI Check (r2 0.23, 0.22 and 0.32). The sensitivity/specificity to target 2021-AAPOS: Hunter-rubric for EyeSwift® was 82%/56%: 74%/62%, for PDI Check was 75/64%: 69%/69% and for blinq 75/48%: 82%/39%. Sensitivity/specificity for the seven color-deficient students was 86%/84% for EyeSwift® and 100%/81% for PDI Check. Screening time was 96±19 s for PDI Check and 375±102 s for EyeSwift but less than 25 s for blinq. CONCLUSION: Reliable near visual acuity, stereo and color testing were obtained from the two binocular and touch screen devices often with minimal coaching of the student. The blinq rapidly gives an estimate of whether both eyes are steadily fixing, and the ProVersion predicted 100% which eye is deviated or amblyopic. Non-refractive validation metrics were beneficial.

AAPOS uniform guidelines for instrument-based pediatric vision screen validation 2021.

BACKGROUND: As instrument-based pediatric vision screening technology has evolved, the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAPOS) has developed uniform guidelines (2003, updated 2013) to inform the development of devices that can detect specified target levels of amblyopia risk factors (ARFs) and visually significant refractive error. Clinical experience with the established guidelines has revealed an apparent high level of over-referral for non-amblyopic, symmetric astigmatism, prompting the current revision. METHODS: The revised guidelines reflect the expert consensus of the AAPOS Vision Screening and Research Committees. RESULTS: For studies of automated screening devices, AAPOS in 2021 recommends that the gold-standard confirmatory comprehensive examination failure levels include anisometropia >1.25 D and hyperopia >4.0 D. Astigmatism >3.0 D in any meridian and myopia < -3 D should be detected in children <48 months, whereas astigmatism >1.75 D and myopia < -2 D should be detected after 48 months. Any media opacity >1 mm and manifest strabismus of >8Δ should also be identified. Along with performance in detecting ARFs and refractive error, validation studies should also report screening instrument performance with regard to presence or absence of amblyopia. Instrument receiver operating characteristic curves and Bland-Altman analysis are suggested to improve comparability of validation studies. CONCLUSIONS: Examination failure criteria have been simplified and the threshold for symmetric astigmatism raised compared to the 2013 guidelines, whereas the threshold for amblyogenic anisometropia has been decreased. After age 4 years, lower magnitudes of symmetric astigmatism and myopia are also targeted despite a low risk of amblyopia, because they can influence school performance and may warrant consideration of myopia prevention therapy.

Ellipsoid Spectacle Comparison of Plusoptix, Retinomax and 2WIN Autorefractors.

BACKGROUND: Handheld devices can automatically give an estimate of refraction. The established method for refraction comparison using spherical equivalent (M) and J0, J45 vector transformations by Bland-Altman analysis is too complex for non-eye doctors involved with vision screening and remote vision clinics. Therefore, a simpler comparison technique was developed. METHODS: Based on the spectacle limit to resolve grade A 1 logMAR, B 3 logMAR and C 6 logMAR blur, J0, J45, and M are combined into the Alaska Blind Child Discovery (ABCD) composite ellipsoid GRADE system. Pediatric eye patients had confirmatory examination after dry refraction with three portable autorefractors: Plusoptix, 2WIN and Retinomax. The refractions were then compared using both Bland-Altman and ABCD composite. Performance to detect AAPOS amblyopia risk factors was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 202 children, mean age seven years, 28% high spectacle need and 43% AAPOS 2013 amblyopia risk factors showed high correlation with cycloplegic refraction (intraclass correlation 0.49 to 0.90) for sphere, J0 and J45 spectacle components. Plusoptix had more (10%) inconclusives due to patients out-of-range. The Retinomax was unable to screen some younger children and was less reliable for sphere but gave more precise astigmatism estimates. The proportion of autorefractions expected to give GRADE A/B high-need patients acuity improvement to 20/40 would be 41% for Plusoptix, 39% for 2WIN and 65% for Retinomax. Sensitivity/specificity for amblyopia risk factor detection was 80%/83% for Plusoptix, 72%/88% for 2WIN and 84%/73% for Retinomax. CONCLUSION: The simplified spectacle comparison resembled Bland-Altman and could assist lay vision screeners and non-eye doctors attempting remote spectacle donation worldwide.

The Oculocardiac Reflex: A Review.

BACKGROUND: A typical oculocardiac reflex (OCR) is a moderate trigemino-vagal bradycardia elicited by tension on an extraocular muscle (EOM) during strabismus surgery; however, many other orbital stimuli can elicit cardiac slowing including retinopathy of prematurity examination. METHODS: World literature related to trigeminovagal and oculocardiac reflex covering over 15,000 patients including 51 randomized clinical trials and case reports are analyzed and reviewed. Under an ongoing observational trial in Alaska, anesthetic, patient and surgical influences on routine strabismus surgery using prospective, uniform EOM tension are compared seeking sufficient sample size to characterize this individually widely variable cardiac response. RESULTS: With adequate sample size, and emphasizing clinical studies controlling type of EOM, muscle tension amount and duration, anticholinergic and opioid medications, the following augment OCR; rapid-acting opioids and dexmedetomidine while OCR is reduced in older patients, the right eye, less EOM tension, deeper inhaled agents, hypocarbia, anticholinergic medications and orbital block. In re-operations, the former are relatively poor predictors of subsequent OCR. CONCLUSION: Profound bradycardia can occur in almost 10% of strabismus surgery cases without anticholinergic preventive measures, but reliable prediction of OCR remains elusive. With foreknowledge and careful anesthetic monitoring of the patient before EOM manipulation, residual adverse sequelae from OCR are fortunately very rare. Despite well over a century of experience, the teleology for this occasionally dramatic cardiac response to eye surgery is still not known.

Digital Values for Alpha Acuities.

PURPOSE: The lack of consistent data formatting for visual acuity in electronic medical records has led to inefficient data extraction and analysis. METHODS: Prior acuity efforts were reviewed and analyzed relative to alpha-designated visual acuity. Prominent electronic medical record formatting was reviewed. RESULTS: A table was generated facilitating the assignment of digital values to alpha acuities for metric and United States designation including centered steady maintained for infants and counting fingers, hand motions, light perception, and no light perception for patients with low vision. DISCUSSION: Consistent and usable visual acuity data should lead to better research and eventually improve physician burn-out. [J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2021;58(2):132-135.].