Abstract
Purpose
To determine the surgical outcome of intermittent exotropia according to preoperative retinal correspondence with the Bagolini striated glasses test and the relationships between the Worth-4-dot test or stereoacuity with the B-VAT test.
Methods
We analyzed retrospectively preoperative fusion statuses with the Worth-4-dot test, stereoacuity with the B-VAT test and retinal correspondence with the Bagolini striated glasses test to determine any possible relationships with surgical outcome. The surgical outcome and binocular function were further investigated six months postoperatively in 114 patients who had undergone surgery for intermittent exotropia.
Results
The surgical outcome according to preoperative fusion status and stereoacuity was not statistically significant(p=0.38, p=0.59). whereas, preoperative retinal correspondence with the Bagolini striated glasses test was statistically significant(p<0.01). More over there was a relationship between retinal correspondence and fusion status or stereoacuity(p<0.01, p<0.01).
References
1. von Noorden GK. Binocular vision and ocular motility. Therapy and management of strabismus. 5th ed.St. Louis: CV Mosby;1996. p. 341–59.
2. Raquel B, Michael F. The role of stereopsis and early postoperative alignment in long-term surgical results of intermittent exotropia. Can J Ophthalmol. 1994; 29:119–24.
3. Yildirim C. Assessment of central and peripheral fusion and near and distance stereoacuity in intermittent exotropic patients before and after strabismus surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999; 128:222–30.
4. Yeo SI, Kim SY, Hwang WS, Kong SM. Surgical results according to sensory function tests in intermittent exotropia. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1999; 40:3174–9.
5. Heo NH, Paik HJ. The relationship between binocular function and the surgical outcome of intermittent exotropia. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2001; 42:1588–93.
6. Parks MM. Biocular vision. Tasman W, Jaeger EA, editors. Duane's Clinical Ophthalmology. revised ed.Philadelphia: JB Lippincott;1993. 1:chap.p. 5.
7. Preito-diaz J. Strabismus. 5th ed.Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann;2000. p. 24–6.
8. Ohtsuki H, Hasebe S, Kono R, et al. Prism adaptation response is useful for predicting surgical outcome in selected types of intermittent exotropia. Am J Ophthalmol. 2001; 131:117–22.
9. Forrer HT. Retinal correspondence in intermittent exotropia. Moore S, editor. Orthoptics: past, present, future. New York: Stratton Inter-continental Medical Books;1976. p. 547–9.
10. Colenbrander MC. The limits of stereoscopic vision. Ophhalmologica. 1948; 115:363–6.
11. Yildirim C, Mutlu FM, Chen Y, Altinsoy HI. Assessment of central and peripheral fusion and near and distance stereoacuity in intermittent exotropic patients before and after strabismus surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999; 128:222–30.
12. Han JH, Kim DS, Shin JC. Amblyopia and sensory fusional anomaly in intermittent exotropia. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2000; 41:495–9.
13. Umazume F, Ohtsuki H, Hasebe S. Predictors of postoperative binocularity in adult strabismus. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 1997; 41:414–21.
14. Ko KH, Min BM. Factors related to surgical results of intermittent exotropia. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1996; 37:179–84.
15. Lee SY, Kim SJ. Evaluation of factors influencing stereoacuity in exodeviation. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1999; 40:538–43.
16. Jeong TS, You IC, Park SW, Park YG. Factors of surgical success with unilateral recession and resection in intermittent exotropia. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2006; 47:1987–92.
Table 1.
| NRC* (n=67) | ARC† (n=29) | Suppression (n=18) |
---|---|---|---|
Sex(Male:Female) | 23:44 | 10:19 | 11:7 |
Mean age(years) | 8.4±3.1 | 7.8±2.5 | 9.5±3.8 |
Preoperative exodeviation (PD‡) | 33.2±8.2 | 29.4±7.6 | 31.3±9.3 |
Esodeviation at postoperative 1 week (PD) | 8.4±3.2 | 7.6±4.6 | 8.3±4.4 |
Table 2.
Surgical outcome‡§ | * NRC‡§ (n=67) | † ARC‡§ (n=29) | Suppression‡ (n=18) | Total (n=114) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Success group | 56(83.6%) | 15(51.7%) | 9(50.0%) | 80(70.2%) |
Failure group | 11(16.4%) | 14(48.3%) | 9(50.0%) | 34(29.8%) |
Total | 67(100%) | 29(100%) | 18(100%) | 114(100%) |
Table 3.
Surgical outcome*† |
Worth 4 dot test* (Central fusion) |
Stereoacuity† (Sec of arc) |
||
---|---|---|---|---|
Present (n=74) | Present (n=40) | ≤100 (n=68) | >100 (n=46) | |
Success group | 54(73.0%) | 26(65.0%) | 49(73.0%) | 31(73.0%) |
Failure group | 20(27.0%) | 14(35.0%) | 19(73.0%) | 15(73.0%) |
Total | 74(100%) | 40(100%) | 68(100%) | 46(100%) |