Distance stereopsis in patients with accommodative esotropia

• Published in: International ophthalmology Vol. 44; no. 1; p. 354
• Main Authors: Oto, Sibel, Gökgöz, Gülşah, Sezenöz, Almila Sarıgül, Bayar, Sezin Akça
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Dordrecht Springer Netherlands 25.08.2024; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Accommodation, Ocular - physiology; Adolescent; Age; Binocular vision; Child; Child, Preschool; Depth Perception - physiology; Deviation; Error analysis; Esotropia - diagnosis; Esotropia - physiopathology; Esotropia - therapy; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Medical records; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Misalignment; Multivariable control; Ophthalmology; Original Paper; Patients; Regression models; Retrospective Studies; Vision, Binocular - physiology; Visual Acuity - physiology; Binocular vision; Stereoacuity; Accommodative esotropia; Stereotests; Distance stereopsis
• ISSN: 0165-5701; 1573-2630; 1573-2630
• DOI: 10.1007/s10792-024-03281-9

Purpose We aimed to evaluate distance stereoacuity (DS) in patients with successfully treated accommodative esotropia (AET) and its association with other clinical factors. Methods The medical records of 176 children with refractive AET with a follow-up period ≥ 1 year were reviewed to identify a cohort of patients who achieved a stable alignment within 4 prism diopters (PD) of orthotropia at both distance and near fixation. Age of onset, duration of misalignment, uncorrected near and distance deviation, accommodative convergence/accommodation ratio, refractive error, presence of anisometropia and amblyopia, near stereopsis were evaluated as predictors of outcome. DS was measured using the Distance Randot Stereo test and near stereoacuity by Randot Stereotest. The patient group was compared with 50 age-matched normal controls for DS. Results Fifty-six patients were included, and 38 patients had DS at the final visit. All patients with DS attained uncontoured near stereopsis (UCNS). UCNS was present only in 11 patients without DS ( p  = 0.001). Anisometropia ( p  = 0.997), uncorrected near deviation ( p  = 0.224), distance deviation with correction ( p  = 0.255), and high hypermetropia ( p  = 0.998) were not associated with DS. The multivariable regression model showed a significant positive correlation between UCNS and DS (OR = 31.14 (95% CI 2.25–430.48); p  = 0.01). Contoured near stereopsis outcome was significantly different between the patients with and without DS ( p  = 0.001 for animals and p  = 0.003 for circles). Compared with the control group, the patient group yielded lower DS scores ( p  = 0.001). Conclusion Distance Randot Stereotest can be useful in measuring binocular vision recovery after successful realignment in refractive AET patients. Patients attaining normal scores for near stereopsis tests after optical correction revealed subnormal thresholds for DS.