Home
Online Advanced Release
CME Articles
Current Issue
Online-only Articles
Back Issues
Special Features
About the Journal
Contact Us
Advertising Info
Reprint Articles
Article Submission
Buy a Book
Terms and Conditions
Careers at SLACK, Inc.
 
e-contents - Sign up today
Subscribe!
OSN SS

Curbside Consultation in Neuro-Ophthalmology


Online Advanced Release
Termination of Amblyopia Treatment: When to Stop Follow-up Visits and Risk Factors for Recurrence
Journal of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus
Christine De Weger, MSc; Henry J. B. Van Den Brom, MD and Robert Lindeboom, PhD
Privacy System Contact us

See the Full text

Share/Save/Bookmark


Originally submitted: 5/6/09; Accepted: 8/4/09; Posted online: 2/23/10

Background: This study estimated when it is safe to stop follow-up visits after cessation of amblyopia treatment and to identify factors associated with deterioration of visual acuity.

Methods: Study patients included 282 patients aged 7 to 13 years who were monitored for deterioration after cessation of amblyopia treatment (median follow-up: 3.9 years).

Results: Six (2.1%) patients lost 2 or more logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution levels of visual acuity and 77 (27.3%) patients lost 1 or more Snellen lines of visual acuity. Good compliance with re-treatment stopped further deterioration and lost visual acuity was regained (average follow-up after re-treatment: 3.3 years). Life-table-analysis indicated that 95% of the cases that deteriorated occurred within 24 months after cessation of treatment. Multivariable analysis corrected for duration of treatment uncovered factors independently associated with deterioration.

Conclusion: A clinically important risk of deterioration of visual acuity was found during the first 2 years after cessation of amblyopia treatment. Follow-up time longer than 2 years is recommended in the presence of a developing risk factor such as increasing anisometropia. With prompt re-treatment and good compliance, deterioration can be stopped and visual acuity can be restored.

doi: 10.3928/01913913-20100218-03

See the Full text