RESUMEN
Purpose: To compare the stereoacuity in patients with anisometropia, isometropia, and emmetropia. Methods: A cross?sectional study was conducted on 1403 subjects (range: 5–45 years) divided into anisometropes (n = 403), isometropes (n = 500), and emmetropes (n = 500). There were 258 amblyopic eyes among anisometropes and 156 amblyopic eyes among isometropes. Stereoacuity was measured using the Titmus stereo test consisting of a combination of contour targets. Results: There were 675 males and 728 females. A significant (P < 0.001) reduction in stereoacuity was found in anisometropes as compared to isometropes and emmetropes. The stereoacuity was even worse in amblyopes as compared to non?amblyopes. Most patients with anisometropia of <3.0 D had fair stereoacuity. However, as the degree of anisometropia increased to >3.0 D, stereoacuity deteriorated gradually. Marked reduction of stereoacuity was observed in severe degree of anisometropia (>6.0 D). Overall, an anisometropia of ?2.12 D was associated with reduced stereoacuity. Among the anisometropes, it was found to be the poorest in myopia, followed by myopia with astigmatism, hypermetropia with astigmatism, and hypermetropia. Conclusion: The level of stereoacuity was worse in anisometropes as compared to isometropes and emmetropes. Amblyopes had a greater reduction in stereoacuity than non?amblyopes. Stereoacuity decreased as the degree of anisometropia increased. Among the anisometropes, myopes had worst stereoacuity than hypermetropes.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical features according to the presence of anisometropia in refractive accommodative esotropia patients. METHODS: Forty-five refractive accommodative esotropia patients were divided into 2 groups : patients who had anisometropia of more than 1.00D (anisometropia group), and patients who had anisometropia of less than 1.00D (isometropia group). Age at onset, age when glasses were first worn, the initial and final angle of esotropia with or without hyperopic correction, the recovery time to orthophoria after hyperopic correction, the degree of stereoacuity and the frequency of amblyopia, the prevalence of deterioration, and the ratio of accommodative-convergence to accommodation were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: There were no statistical differences between the 2 groups in the frequency of amblyopia, the prevalence of deterioration, and the ratio of accommodative-convergence to accommodation at the initial and final visit. The angles of deviation with hyperopic correction at the 1-month follow-up visit in the anisometropia group and the isometropia group were 8.80 +/- 5.63 PD for near, 8.67 +/- 5.42 PD for distance, and 4.54 +/- 6.59 PD for near 5.19 +/- 6.7 PD for distance, respectively; the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.042). The recovery time to orthophoria after hyperopic correction in patients associated with anisometropia was 2.20 +/- 1.01 months, significantly longer than 1.47 +/- 0.86 months in patients associated with isometropia (p = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: In refractive accommodative esotropia patients associated with anisometropia, the recovery time to orthophoria after hyperopic correction was significantly prolonged but there were no statistical differences in other clinical manifestations.