Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.53(1) > 1009173

Jin, Lee, and Lee: Relationship between Control Grade and Stereoacuity in Basic Intermittent Exotropia



The present study was conducted to identify the correlation between control grade and stereoacuity in basic intermittent exotropia (X[T]).


Eighty-six patients with basic X (T) were divided into 3 subgroups according to their control grade and the near and distant stereoacuities were evaluated.


Group 1; good control group, consisted of 28 patients, group 2; fair control, 30 patients, and group 3; poor control, 28 patients. Mean near stereoacuities measured by the Titmus test were 58.21 arcseconds in group 1, 75.33 arcseconds in group 2, and 151.43 arcseconds in group 3. The mean distant stereoacuities measured by a Mentor B-VAT® II-SG videoacuity tester were 118.93 arcseconds in group 1, 165.33 arcseconds in group 2, and 276.43 arcseconds in group 3. When comparing the 3 groups, the poorer the control grade, the worse were the near and distant stereoacuities (p = 0.002, p < 0.001). When compared in pairs, however, group 1 showed a better near stereoacuity than groups 2 and 3 (p = 0.02, p = 0.002, respectively), while group 2 and group 3 did not show any distinct differences (p = 0.13). Group 1 also showed a better distant stereoacuity than groups 2 and 3 (p = 0.02, p < 0.001, respectively), as did group 2 compared to group 3 (p < 0.001).


Control grade and distant stereoacuity have significant correlation in patients with basic X (T) and can function as helpful indicators for monitoring the deterioration and progression of exodeviation.

Figures and Tables

Table 1
Subject and subgroup demographics

*SD = standard deviation; Group 1 = good control; Group 2 = fair control; §Group 3 = poor control.

Table 2
Comparison of mean visual acuity and spherical equivalent in each group

*OD = Oculus dexter; OS = Oculus sinister; Group 1 = good control; §Group 2 = fair control; Group 3 = poor control.

Table 3
Comparison of mean deviation angle and stereoacuity in each group

*PD = prism diopters; Group 1 = good control; Group 2 = fair control; §Group 3 = poor control.


1. von Noorden GK. Binocular Vision and Ocular Motility: Theory and Management of Strabismus. 2002. 6th ed. St Louis: Mosby;356–376.
2. Jampolsky A. Characteristics of suppression in strabismus. AMA Arch Ophthalmol. 1995. 54:683–696.
3. Rosenbaum AL, Stathacopoulos RA. Subjective and objective criteria for recommending surgery in intermittent exotropia. Am Orthopt J. 1992. 42:46–51.
4. Stathacopoulos RA, Rosenbaum AL, Zanoni D, et al. Distance stereoacuity. Assessing control in intermittent exotropia. Ophthalmology. 1993. 100:495–500.
5. O'Neal TD, Rosenbaum AL, Stathacopoulos RA. Distance stereo acuity improvement in intermittent exotropic patients following strabismus surgery. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 1995. 32:353–357.
6. Jenkins R. Demographics: geographic variations in the prevalence and management of exotropia. Am Orthopt J. 1992. 42:82–87.
7. Burian HM. Exodeviations: their classification, diagnosis and treatment. Am J Ophthalmol. 1966. 62:1161–1166.
8. Rosenbaum AL, Santiago AP. Clinical Strabismus Management: Principles and Surgical Techniques. 1999. 1st ed. Philadelphia: Saunders;156–168.
9. Rutstein RP, Daum KM. Anomalies of Binocular Vision: Diagnosis and Management. 1998. 1st ed. St Louis: Mosby;111–146.
10. Lee SY. Comparison of distance and near stereoacuity in normal and intermittent exotropic children. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2001. 42:624–629.
11. Baker JD, Davies GT. Monofixational intermittent exotropia. Arch Ophthalmol. 1979. 97:93–95.
12. Park BC, Lee JY. Control grade of intermittent exotropia and related factors. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2006. 47:1781–1790.
13. Ko BW, Shin SY. The clinical features of patients with early recurrence and with orthophoria after intermittent exotropia surgery. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2008. 49:1108–1113.
14. Roh JH, Paik HJ. Clinical study on factors associated with recurrence and reoperation in intermittent exotropia. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2008. 49:1114–1119.
Similar articles