Levels Of Anisometropia Research Articles

Treatment Outcomes of Myopic Anisometropia with 1% Atropine

To investigate the safety and efficacy of the treatment of myopic anisometropia with 1% atropine. Twenty-two children with myopic anisometropia were prescribed 1% solution of atropine sulfate to the more myopic eye, one drop before sleep every 3 days. Children were visited every 3 to 4 months until the degree of anisometropia was no more than 0.5 diopters (D) ("Success") or unchanged after 9 months of treatment ("No effect"). The treatment effect was assessed by comparing the interocular imbalance in refraction and axial length before and after the treatment. A detailed questionnaire about subjective symptoms in each visit and an electroretinogram in the end were administered to evaluate the side effects of this treatment. The subjects were followed for 7 to 16 months. Six subjects withdrew participation on their own accord, and three were excluded because of inconstant usage of drug. Of the 13 remaining subjects, the refraction of the treated eyes decreased by 0.63 ± 0.59 D (p = 0.007), whereas that of the untreated eyes increased by -0.72 ± 0.65 D (p < 0.001). A corresponding trend was also found in the change of the axial length. Accordingly, the level of anisometropia was reduced from 1.82 ± 0.73 D to 0.47 ± 0.65 D (p < 0.001) and 10 (76.9%) of the 13 subjects were designated a "Success." One percent atropine was well tolerated by the children, and no electroretinogram abnormality was detected. The results from this pilot study indicate that monocular usage of a solution of 1% atropine sulfate is an effective treatment to reduce anisometropia, although with some tolerable side effects. Nevertheless, an attenuated benefit was observed after cessation of atropine treatment. Thus, participants should be informed of a possible rebound effect before the administration of atropine for myopic anisometropia.

Quality of vision with traditional monovision versus modified monovision

AbstractPurpose To compare binocular subjective quality of vision with modified monovision (MMV) (ie different combinations of spherical (SA4) and secondary spherical (SA6) aberration on each eye) versus traditional monovision (TMV) with different level of anisometropiaMethods A numerical eye model was used to generate images (ie three 0.4 logMAR high contrast letters) viewed through a 4.7mm pupil, degraded by various condition of SA and for proximities from ‐5D to 5D (Naked eye, SA4‐0.4μm, SA4+0.4μm, SA4‐0.4 and SA6+0.2μm, SA4+0.4 and SA6‐0.2μm). Binocular vision was simulated using a 3D‐NVIDIA video device projecting different image on each eye. Binocular through‐focus (TF) quality of vision was evaluated using a grading scale (ITU‐R 500 recommendation) by four subjects with TMV for different level of anisometropia (ie 0.5 to 3D at 0.5D step) and with various combination of MMVResults Area under TF curve (ie a way to evaluate quality of vision) measured for a fair or higher image quality was increased with TMV and MMV compared to naked eye because of the summation of the two best monocular curves. With TMV, a 2.5D anisometropia was the more effective to increase area under TF curve with however a lack of intermediate vision. With MMV the greatest increase of quality of vision was obtained with reverse profile of SA4 and SA6 on each eye (ie SA4‐0.4 and SA6+0.2μm on one eye and SA4+0.4 and SA6‐0.2μm on the other eye). Compared to TMV, reverse profiles of MMV showed a significant benefit in improving area under TF curve thanks to a better quality of intermediate visionConclusion MMV especially with reverse profiles of SA improved overall quality of vision without the lack of intermediate quality of vision intermediate quality of vision induced by TMV

A longitudinal study of a population based sample of astigmatic children: II. The changeability of anisometropia

The variability of anisometropi in a sample of 310 children with astigmatism at the age of 1 year was longitudinally studied during a 3-year period between 1 and 4 years of age. The prevalence of anisometropia of 1 D or more at each year level was rather stable. When individual cases were examined we found that between the first and the last test session 19 of the 33 children with anisometropia at the first test session had become non-anisometropic and were substituted with 14 new cases which were non-anisometropic at the age of 1 year. In general, less than half of the cases, at all levels of anisometropia, remained anisometropic throughout the whole test period. We also found that children with anisometropia persisting through the whole test period were at considerable risk, about one out of four, of developing amblyopia. There was no simple relationship, however, between anisometropia at a certain age level between 1 and 4 years and amblyopia and/or strabismus. Non-persisting anisometropia in an emmetropizing eye is in most cases a benign sign and not connected with an increased risk for developing amblyopia.