Attention Deficit Hyperactivity in Exotropia Before and After Strabismus Surgery

Soolienah Rhiu; Seung Ah Chung; Yoon Hee Chang; Jong Bok Lee

doi:10.3341/jkos.2009.50.5.756

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.50(5) > 1008556

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Rhiu, Chung, Chang, and Lee: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity in Exotropia Before and After Strabismus Surgery

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2009;50(5):756-761.

Published online: 7 September 2009

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2009.50.5.756

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity in Exotropia Before and After Strabismus Surgery

Soolienah Rhiu, MD¹, Seung Ah Chung, MD¹, Yoon Hee Chang, MD², Jong Bok Lee, MD¹

¹The Institute of vision research, Department of Ophthalmology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

²Department of Ophthalmology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea

Address reprint requests to Jong Bok Lee, MD Department of Opthalmology, College of Medicine, Yonsei University Hospital #134 Shinchon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-752, Korea Tel: 82-2-2228-3577, Fax: 82-2-312-0541, E-mail: 491209@yuhs.ac

Received 30 September 2008 Accepted 4 February 2009

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the effect of strabismus surgery in exotropia patients suspected of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Methods

Parents of 67 exotropia patients answered the Conner Teacher Rating Scale-Revised for suspecting ADHD before and after 3 months of surgery. Patients were divided into 2 groups by preoperative scale scores. Group 1 had scores under 15 and group 2 who were suspected to have ADHD had scores above 15. Characteristics of exotropia and scale score differences were evaluated.

Results

Group 1 had 43 patients and group 2 had 24 patients. The ratio of group 2 was significantly higher in boys than in girls (P=0.048). The scale scores increased by 1.30 points in group 1 and decreased by 1.04 points in group 2 but there was no significant difference. Scale scores in each group showed no significant difference according to surgical outcome.

Conclusions

In exotropia patients, there was no significant change in scale scores of ADHD after strabismus surgery.

Keywords: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Exotropia

References

1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR. 4th ed. Text revision. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association;2000. p. 85–93.

2. Jensen P, Kettle L, Roper M, et al. Are stimulants overprescribed? Treatment of ADHD in four U.S. communities. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1999; 38:797–804.

3. Goldman L, Genel M, Bezman R, Slanetz P. Diagnosis and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. JAMA. 1998; 279:1100–7.

4. Leslie LK, Weckerly J, Plemmons D, et al. Implementing the American Academy of Pediatrics attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder diagnostic guidelines in primary care settings. Pediatrics. 2004; 114:129–40.

5. Cho SC, Shin YO. Prevalence of disruptive behavior disorders. J Kor Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1991; 41:147–259.

6. Kim YS, Yu So YK, Noh JS, et al. Normative data on the Korean ADHD Rating Scales (K-ARS) for Parents and Teacher. J Korean Neuropsychiatr Assoc. 2003; 42:352–9.

7. Mostoofsky SH, Lasker AG, Cutting LE, et al. Oculomotor abnormalities in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; A preliminary study. Neurology. 2001; 57:423–30.

8. Gould TD, Bastain TM, Israel ME, et al. Altered performance on an ocular fixation task in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Biol Psychiatry. 2001; 50:633–5.

9. Feifel D, Farber RH, Clementz BA, et al. Inhibitory deficits in ocular motor behavior in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Biol Psychiatry. 2004; 56:333–9.

10. Munoz DP, Armstrong IT, Hampton KA, Moore KD. Altered control of visual fixation and saccadic eye movements in attention–deficit hyperactivity disorder. J Neurophysiol. 2003; 90:503–14.

11. Grönlund MA, Aring E, Landgren M, Hellström A. Visual function and ocular features in children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, with and without treatment with stimulants. Eye. 2007; 21:494–502.

12. Granet DB, Gomi CF, Ventura R, Miller-Scholte A. The relationship between convergence insufficiency and ADHD. Strabismus. 2005; 13:163–8.

13. Klein C, Jr Fischer B, Fischer B, Hartnegg K. Effects of methylphenidate on saccadic responses in patients with ADHD. Exp Brain Res. 2002; 145:121–5.

14. Lew H, Lee JB, Han SH, et al. Clinical study on emotion and behavioral disturbance in children with strabismus. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1999; 40:2611–6.

15. Goyette CH, Conners CK, Ulrich RF. Normative data on revised Conners Parent and Teacher Rating Scales. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 1978; 6:221–36.

16. Conners CK, Sitarenios G, Parker JD, Epstein JN. Revision and restandardization of the Conners Teacher Rating Scale (CTRS-R): factor structure, reliability, and criterion validity. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 1998; 26:279–91.

17. Conners CK. A teacher rating scale for use in drug studies with children. Am J Psychiatry. 1969; 126:884–8.

18. Oh KJ, Lee H. Assessment of ADHD with abbreviated Corners Rating Scale. The Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology. 1989; 8:135–42.

19. Oh KJ. Assessment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. J Kor Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1990; 1:65–76.

20. Bennett FC, Brown RT, Craver J, Anderson D. Stimulant medication for the child with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Pediatr Clin North Am. 1999; 46:929–44.

21. Lee SY, Kim JH, Thacker NM. Augmented bilateral lateral rectus recessions in basic intermittent exotropia. J AAPOS. 2007; 11:266–8.

22. Spierer A, Ben-Simon GJ. Unilateral and bilateral lateral rectus recession in exotropia. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2005; 36:114–7.

23. Figueira EC, Hing S. Intermittent exotropia: comparison of treatments. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2006; 34:245–51.

24. Asjes-Tydeman WL, Groenewoud H, van der Wilt GJ. Timing of surgery for primary exotropia in children. Strabismus. 2007; 15:95–101.

25. Fiorelli VM, Goldchmit M, Uesuqui CF, Souza-Dias C. Intermittent exotropia: comparative surgical results of lateral rectirecession and monocular recess-resect. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2007; 70:429–32.

26. Chia A, Seenyen L, Long QB. Surgical experiences with two-muscle surgery for the treatment of intermittent exotropia. J AAPOS. 2006; 10:206–11.

Figure 1.

Conners Teacher Rating Scale-Revised.

Figure 2.

Frequency of preoperative attention deficit hyperactivity aspect (^* p-value=0.048).

Figure 3.

Proportion of difference in scale scores after surgery (p-value=0.62).

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics

	Values(N=67)
No. of patients (%)	
M: F	26 (38.8): 41 (61.2)
Mean Age (yr)	6.0 (range, 3–11)
BCVA^* (decimal)	
OD	0.81
OS	0.80
CR^† SE^‡ (diopter)	
OD	−0.26
OS	−0.28
Consistancy	
Intermittent No.(%)	54 (80.6)
Constant No.(%)	13 (19.4)
Mean deviation (PD^§)	25.12 (range, 10–55)
Mean onset (yr)	2.8 (range, 0–9)
Mean duration (mo)	41.2 (range, 3–81)
Surgical results	
Success No.(%)	56(83.6)

^* BCVA=best corrected visual acuity

^† CR=cycloplegic refraction

^‡ SE=spherical equivalent

^§ PD=prism diopter.

Table 2.

Demographic data between two groups according to preoperative scale scores

Scale scores	<15	≥15
No. of patients	43	24
M: F	13: 30	13: 11
Mean Age± SD^* (yr)	6.1±1.9	5.8±2.2
BCVA^† (decimal)		
OD	0.788	0.839
OS	0.779	0.826
CR^‡ SE^§ (diopter)		
OD	−0.345	−0.109
OS	−0.357	−0.151
Mean deviation (PD^∏)	24.95	25.42

^* SD=standard deviation

^† BCVA=best corrected visual acuity

^‡ CR=cycloplegic refraction

^§ SE=spherical equivalent

^∏ D= prism diopter.

Table 3.

Scale scores before and after surgery

Scale scores	Preoperation	Postoperation	Score difference^*	p-value
Total	12.67	13.13	0.46	.70
<15	7.49	8.79	1.30	.22
≥15	21.96	20.92	−1.04	.71

^* Postoperation – Preoperation scale scores.

Table 4.

Scale scores before and after surgery according to surgical results

Scale scores		Preoperation	Postoperation	Score difference^*	p-value
<15	Success	7.19	8.41	1.22	.30
	Failure	9.33	11.17	1.84	.50
≥15	Success	23.05	20.37	−2.68	.36
	Failure	17.80	23.00	5.2	.53

^* Postoperation–Preoperation scale scores.

TOOLS

Similar articles