jacob sales

8/22/2019 Jacob Sales

1/24

Running Head: TREATMENT OF UNILATERAL AMBLYOPIA

An Analysis of Treatment of Unilateral Amblyopia:

A Multi-method Approach

Jacob Sales

Department of Psychology

University of Minnesota


2/24

TREATMENT OF UNILATERAL AMBLYOPIA

Abstract

Amblyopia is an exceedingly common visual deficit marked by poor visual acuity and subpar

performance of one or both eyes due to misshapen refractive surfaces of the cornea or weak

muscles around the eye. Success rates of current treatment options are inadequate, leaving

millions of people with untreated or unimproved amblyopia. Much of this failure is due to a high

rate of noncompliance to regimens of traditional techniques such as refractive adaptation with

corrective lenses and occlusion therapy, possibly due to a lack of patient knowledge about the

seriousness of the disorder and the critical nature of treatment. Other techniques such as LASIK

surgery, strabismus surgery, and especially virtual reality therapy offer potential for treatment of

amblyopia as well. Accordingly, a new multi-method paradigm that maximizes strengths and

mitigates weaknesses of each technique and results in a high rate of compliance must be

established. I propose a five stage program involving diagnosis and debriefing, refractive

adaptation with corrective lenses, rigorous treatment with virtual reality therapy, surgical options

and repeated attempt of treatment, and long term maintenance. Research must be conducted to

establish the success of virtual reality therapy, and the efficacy of the multi-method paradigm.

An improved treatment path would improve quality of life of numerous amblyopes.


3/24


An Analysis of Treatment of Unilateral Amblyopia: A Multi-method Approach

Amblyopia is commonly defined as poor vision due to abnormal visual experience in

early life (Webber & Wood, 2005). The effects of amblyopia range in severity from reduced

visual acuity (roughly 20/40 acuity) to legal blindness (less than 20/200 acuity) (Flom &

Neumaier, 1966). Many people call amblyopia lazy eye, but this phrase is a bit misleading.

The problem begins with the malfunction of the eye, but amblyopia is also a neurological

disorder. Amblyopia is not the cause of visual malfunction in itself; it is the result of another

disorder, such as anisometropia or strabisumus (Attebo et al., 1998).

Chia et al. (2010) divides the disorder into two types; bilateral amblyopia and unilateral

amblyopia. In bilateral amblyopia, both eyes malfunction, causing visual deficits (Chia et al.,

2010). In unilateral amblyopia, one eye performs differently than the other eye, which causes

two different visual signals to be sent to the brain. After a long period of time with these

conflicting signals, the brain might begin to ignore input from one eye in order to make sense of

the contradicting input (Medline Plus,Refractive errors, 2012). While both unilateral and

bilateral amblyopia are serious disorders, I will only address unilateral amblyopia in this paper.

For conciseness, I will refer to unilateral amblyopia simply as amblyopia.

Many options are available for the treatment of amblyopia, such as traditional methods

of prescribing glasses for refractive adaptation (Kivlin & Flynn, 1981) and occlusion therapy

(Lee & Isenberg, 1981). Recent studies have found that other treatment options such as LASIK

surgery (Autrata & Rehurek, 2004), strabismus surgery (Flax, 1993), and virtual reality therapy

(Cleary, Moody, Buchanan, Stewart, & Dutton, 2009; Jeon, Maurer, & Lewis, 2012) could also

be effective for treating amblyopia.


4/24


Without regard for etiology, Flom and Neumaier (1966) estimated that 1.8 percent of

Americans suffer from amblyopia. Recent investigations by Webber and Wood (2005) and

Attebo et al. (1998) have claimed that the current rate of amblyopia is now around 3 percent,

which means an estimate of a staggering 200 million people around the world have some degree

of amblyopia (U.S Department of Commerce, 2012). Wellesley (1959) states that most sufferers

from amblyopia are unaware of it until the strong eye deteriorates, causing the amblyope to

become aware of his lack of acuity in the weak eye. Many of the estimated 200 million might not

even realize they have a serious visual disorder.

Thankfully, Amblyopia can be treated, especially if treatment begins early in the patients

life and quickly after onset of the corresponding disorder (Waddingham, Cobb, Eastgate, &

Gregson, 2006; Wellesly 1959). However, the rate of diagnosis and successful treatment leaves

something to be desired. Estimates of efficacy range from 75 percent to only 50 percent (Hiscox,

Strong, Thompson, Minshull, & Woodruff, 1992; Leiba, Shimshoni, Oliver, Gottesman, &

Levartovsky, 2000). For example, Kivlin and Flynn (1981) treated 67 anisometropic amblyopes

with refraction correcting glasses, and found that 70 percent experienced improvements with

visual acuity. While these results give hope for amblyopes and their families, the 30 percent who

did not experience improvement still must be addressed. Many similar results have been found

using different techniques such as occlusion therapy, or patching, with an improvement rate of

72 percent (Leiba et al., 2000).

In addition to the unreliable success rate of most treatment options, many therapies that

seemed to be a success initially did not create lasting improvement in the patient. In fact, Leiba,

et al. (2000) followed up on the initial assessment of success 54 patients, and found that after an

average of 6.4 years after the initial treatment ended, only 66.7 percent retained the initial


5/24


improvement. The overall results are quite disappointing. Of the original 54 participants in this

study, only 26 experienced lasting improvement. A mere 48 percent benefited from lasting

results. Similar results were found when Hiscox et al. (1992) followed up on 368 occlusion

therapy patients after an average of 31 months post-therapy. They discovered that the majority of

subjects did experience some success, but 23 percent did not improve.

Even though the treatment of amblyopia does produce a fair amount of success using

traditional methods such as prescribing glasses and occlusion therapy, the overwhelming

majority of studies find that at least a quarter of patients do not improve. Using the figure of 200

million amblyopes mentioned earlier, this still leaves almost 50 million people with

unsuccessfully treated amblyopia (assuming that all 200 million were diagnosed with and treated

for amblyopia, which is highly unlikely in itself). Gregson (2002) argues that part of the reason

that current treatments are not effective is non-compliance. Current treatment paradigms simply

do not work as well as they are intended to if they regimen is not strictly adhered to. The solution

might be a standard paradigm for treatment that considers the strengths and weaknesses of many

treatment options, as well as their compliance rates. Many techniques can be utilized due to the

fact that different types and severities of amblyopia will require different treatment. A standard

procedure that uses many techniques to their full potential and maintains a high compliance rate

must be established for optimal treatment of amblyopia.

As previously mentioned, the best paradigm for treating amblyopia is one that utilizes the

strengths of all of these techniques while attempting to mitigate their weaknesses. This literature

review will first describe in more detail the two main causes of and three severities of amblyopia,

along with a brief review of each conditions effect on optimal treatment option. Then I will

acknowledge the pros and cons of each form of treatment, and analyze and compare all of the


6/24


major treatment options. After I have thoroughly explored each treatment option, I will explicate

a multi-method approach to treating unilateral amblyopia. Finally, further research will be

suggested that will provide more evidence for the effectiveness of this approach, and the broad

implications of this new paradigm will be discussed.

Etiology of Amblyopia and its Relevance to Treatment Options

Amblyopia is caused by 2 main disorders; anisometropia and strabismus (Attebo et al.,

1998). While the resulting amblyopia is essentially the same, the two different forms of

amblyopia require slightly different forms of treatment. This is because the malfunction with

anisometropia is with the cornea, and the malfunction with strabismus is with the muscles

surrounding the eye (Medline Plus,Refractive errors, 2012; Medline Plus, Strabismus, 2012).

Accordingly, refractive adaptation with glasses and LASIK surgery are more effective at treating

anisometropic amblyopia because these methods aim to improve the refractive ability of the

cornea (Stewart, Moseley, Fielder, & Stephens, 2004). Likewise, interventions such as

strabismus surgery are more effective for treating strabismic amblyopia due to the fact that these

methods address the ineffective eye muscles (Flax, 1993). I will propose treatment methods for

each variation of amblyopia in my proposal of the multi-method approach. It should also be

noted that anisometropia and strabismus can and frequently do co-occur (Attebo et al., 1998).

This phenomenon will also be addressed after presentation of each disorder and summary of the

treatment options.

Anisometropia

Anisometropia, also known as refractive error, is the most common cause of amblyopia.

Attebo et al. (1998) found that about 50 percent of amblyopia is due to anisometropia alone.

These errors are caused by irregular shape of the cornea, and are known as myopia


7/24


(nearsightedness), hyperopia (farsightedness), presbyopia (farsightedness due to age), and

astigmatism (inability of the eye to focus) (Medline Plus,Refractive Errors, 2012). A diagnosis

of one of these disorders usually results in an optometrist prescribing glasses for the patient, but

if the disorder occurs during a critical stage of development, or if the anisometropia is severe

enough, the eyes will develop with different refractive strengths, commonly leading to

amblyopia (Sireteanu & Fronius, 1981).

Strabismus

Attebo et al. (1998) also discovered that strabismus is the next most common cause of

amblyopia. In strabismus, the error is with the muscles that control the eye rather than the shape

of the cornea (Medline Plus, Strabismus 2012). Because the muscles do not work together as

well as they are supposed to, the eyes gaze in different directions. This crossed-eyed gaze is what

most people think of when they hear lazy eye. Like anisometropia, untreated strabismus can

result in amblyopia (Medline Plus, Strabismus, 2012).

Mixed

Mixed amblyopia is simply amblyopia caused by both anisometropia and strabismus.

Attebo et al. (1998) found that about 27 percent of amblyopia can be considered mixed

amblyopia. Fortunately, treatment of amblyopia is no more complicated that treating both

anisometropic amblyopia and strabismic amblyopia separately, although overall success rates are

slightly lower (Stewart, Fielder, Stephen, & Moseley, 2005).

Severity of Amblyopia and its Relevance to Treatment Options

While the deficits of amblyopia vary greatly from patient to patient, the severity can

generally be classified as mild, moderate, or severe. A simple classification system is based on

visual acuity. Flom and Neumaier (1966) used the benchmarks of 20/40 acuity for mild


8/24


amblyopia, and 20/200 for severe amblyopia (legal blindness), with moderate amblyopia falling

somewhere in between. Stewart, Fielder et al. (2005) concluded that treatment outcomes are

influenced by the severity of the amblyopia. Refractive adaptation worked best for mild

amblyopia, and worse for more severe amblyopia (Stewart, Fielder, et al.). Conversely, occlusion

therapy was more effective for treating severe amblyopia and less effective with mild amblyopia

than refractive adaptation was (Stewart, Fielder, et al.). Surgical options should only be used for

severe cases due to the invasiveness of these options. Virtual Reality therapy seems to work best

in moderate cases, but improvement is seen in all levels of severity (Hess, Mansouri, &

Thompson, (2010). It is also important to note that as severity of amblyopia increased, the

overall success rate of treatment declined to about a 65 percent improvement rate for severe

amblyopes (Stewart, Fielder, et al.). I will argue that due to levels of invasiveness and

effectiveness, some treatment options are better suited for certain severities of amblyopia.

Mild Amblyopia

Treatment seems to be most effective with mild amblyopia. The overall success rate of

the treatment of mild amblyopia is about 80 percent, and refractive adaptation and occlusion

frequently provide improvement (Stewart, Fielder, et al. 2005). Due to the fact that simple, non-

invasive interventions seem to have a generally positive effect, refractive adaptation and

occlusion therapy should be implemented in mild cases.

Moderate Amblyopia

Generally, moderate amblyopia follows the same outcome pattern as mild amblyopia.

Both severities see success in about 80 percent of patients, but occlusion therapy has a slightly

higher likelihood of success than occlusion therapy does for moderate amblyopia (Stewart,

Fielder et al., 2005). Accordingly, refractive adaptation and occlusion therapy are recommended.


9/24


If these interventions do not improve function, virtual reality therapy might be used. Cases of

amblyopia that fall on the border of moderate and severe might need more rigorous treatment,

but the exact borderline of maximum treatment efficacy has not yet been established.

Severe Amblyopia

In the most severe cases of amblyopia, many treatments become less effective, especially

refractive adaptation (Stewart, Fielder, et al., 2005). Other more rigorous or invasive treatment

options must be assessed for treating severe cases. The options I will discuss include virtual

reality therapy, LASIK surgery, and strabismus surgery.

Analysis of Treatment Options

As I have established, some treatment options are better suited for certain types of

amblyopia. Each treatment option in itself has inherent pros and cons. Before I present

recommended treatment paradigms for each subtype of amblyopia, I will summarize the five

main treatment options.

Treatment Options

Refractive adaptation with corrective lenses.

Corrective lenses are usually used in the initial attempt to correct anisometropia and

amblyopia. Lenses can be custom made to compensate for refractive error in the weak eye. Both

glasses and contact lenses are frequently used for refractive adaptation.

Strengths of refractive adaptation with corrective lenses.

Overall, refractive adaptation does achieve a fairly high success rate, especially among

younger children and mild cases of amblyopia. (Kivlin & Flynn, 1981). Of all treatment options,

prescribing glasses is far and away the least invasive. Kivlin and Flynn also concluded that


10/24


refractive adaptation is an excellent maintenance method. Continuing treatment with glasses

seems to prevent improvement from fading (Kivlin & Flynn).

Weaknesses of refractive adaptation with corrective lenses.

However, corrective lens therapy does fall short in some areas. This therapy requires a

median of 8 months to be effective (Kivlin & Flynn, 1981). Many patients and their families are

simply not patient enough to wait that long for improvement. In addition, 30 percent of patients

do not improve with this treatment (Kivlin & Flynn, 1981). This problem is especially prevalent

in patients with strabismic amblyopia, who only experience 60 percent as much improvement as

patients with anisometropic amblyopia (Stewart, Fielder et al., 2004). Also, refractive adaptation

alone does not effectively treat more severe cases of amblyopia (Stewart, Fielder et al.). These

shortcomings prompt many therapists and families to seek alternative options.

Occlusion therapy.

Occlusion therapy seems to be the current standard for treating amblyopia. This

technique, also known as patching, involves covering the strong, non-amblyopic eye, which

forces the weaker eye to be used (Bhandari, Sharma, & Shrestha, 2012). The idea behind this

treatment is to make the amblyopic eye practice seeing again without being dominated by the

strong eye. Duration of patching varies due to age of the patient and severity of the amblyopia.

Eventually, both eyes are meant to become roughly the same strength.

Strengths of occlusion therapy.

Stewart, Fielder et al. (2005) found that many patients who undergo occlusion therapy

attain better visual acuity, with about 52 percent seeing significant improvement. This effect is

especially pronounced in patients with strabismic amblyopia (Stewart, Fielder et al.). Like


11/24


refractive adaptation, many cases if mild to moderate amblyopia can be treated using occlusion

therapy (Stewart, Fielder et al.). Occlusion therapy is also fairly noninvasive.

Weaknesses of occlusion therapy.

Despite its potential benefits, Stewart, Fielder et al. (2005) address three substantial

deficiencies of occlusion therapy; an age bias, lack of effectiveness with anisometropic

amblyopia, and a very high noncompliance rate. Occlusion therapy works better for children, and

is almost completely ineffective for adults. Anisometropic amblyopia also seems to be resistant

to this treatment option.

Arguably, the most important weakness of patching is the high noncompliance rate.

Newsham (2000) defines noncompliance as following treatment for less than 80 percent of the

prescribed time. Multiple studies have found that the noncompliance rate hovers somewhere

around and abysmal 50 percent (Stewart, Fielder et al. 2005; Al-Zuhaibi et al., 2009). Bhandari

et al. (2012) claims that this rate is so poor because the noncompliant patients do not understand

the critical period of visual development, and are unaware of the importance of treatment.

Other studies have noted that occlusion therapy causes relatively impermananent

improvement. Bhola et al. (2006) and Hiscox et al. (1992) both found that about a quarter of

treatments that were initially declared successful required repeated treatment at a later time,

with recurrence rates of 27 percent and 23 percent, respectively. Without question, repeated

treatment using a preciously inadequate technique is a hassle.

A final, but crucial weakness is the lack of cooperation between the eyes. While the weak

eye may improve, Gregson (2002) claims that occlusion therapy will never allow the eyes to

work as an integrated system.


12/24


Virtual reality therapy.

In the past few years, virtual reality therapy has become a subject of interest for

amblyopia researchers. These novel techniques might replace occlusion therapy as the new

standard in amblyopia treatment. Many variations on virtual reality therapy are currently being

explored, but one of the most promising systems is the Interactive Binocular Treatment (I-

BiT) system. With assistance from the Directorate of Ophthalmology at Queens Medical

Centre, the Virtual Reality Applications Research Team of the University of Nottingham

developed a treatment that includes both eyes in the treatment process. In the I-BiT system, the

amblyopic patient wears a set of goggles that projects video to each eye separately. Details can

be presented to the weak eye alone, with causes the weak eye to learn to see again (Eastgate et

al., 2006). Even more importantly, each eye is able to receive different signals and integrate them

into a functional visual image, which allows for improvement of binocular cooperation (Eastgate

et al.). Subjects were able to play interactive visual based games with the goggles, with key

elements only presented to the amblyopic eye. Thus, the game required the use of both eyes for

success (Eastgate et al.). For a more detailed summary of the I-Bit system and methodology,

please reference Eastgate et al.

Strengths of virtual reality therapy.

Unlike occlusion therapy, which only treats one eye and creates a risk diplopia (Gregson,

2002; Wessels, 2011), virtual reality techniques treat both eyes at the same time, which improves

the visual systems ability to integrate signals from each eye (Eastgate et al., 2006; Hess et al.,

2010). Cleary, Moody, Buchanan, Stewart, and Dutton (2009) emphasize the importance of the

sustained improvement. After completion of the therapy program, an impressive 60 percent of

patients maintained their highest acuity score from the end of the treatment (Cleary et al.).


13/24


Eastgate et al (2006) also states the adaptability of the program and the short duration of

the treatment as advantages of the I-BiT system over occlusion therapy. The system is fully

adjustable to provide appropriate treatment for people of all ages, genders, severity of amblyopia,

etc (Eastgate et al). Even severe visual deficits can be treated with satisfying results

(Waddingham et al., 2006). Surprisingly, many older people with amblyopia experience

improvement with this program as well. While the effects are usually not as pronounced in older

amblyopes as they are in younger amblyopes, elderly patients still show visual improvement,

which is a remarkable demonstration of adult visual neuroplasticity (Hess et al., 2010; Cleary et

al., 2009; Jeon et al., 2010).

A final strength that must be considered is the high compliance rates for virtual reality

therapy. While occlusion therapy takes 120 to 200 hours to complete, virtual reality therapy has

produced noticeable improvement in less than two hours of treatment time over a span of 8

weeks (Cleary et al., 2009). This immediate positive feedback gives hope to the patient that the

treatment will work, which greatly increases compliance rates (Hess et al., 2010). In addition,

the system is actually enjoyable for patients. Instead of losing sight in one eye for hours on end

or wearing glasses, the subject plays a video game instead (Cleary et al., 2009). Amblyopic

patients, especially children will be much more likely to adhere to this regimen (Cleary et al.).

Strong compliance rates will aid overall success for this treatment option.

Weaknesses of virtual reality therapy.

Virtual reality therapy has very few weaknesses. The largest is that this treatment option

is still in its infancy. Many of the studies are pilot studies or small samples. More research is

needed before declaring virtual reality therapy the standard amblyopia treatment, but all research

points in that direction.


14/24


LASIK surgery.

Laser assisted in situ keratomileusis, more commonly known as LASIK, is an

increasingly common procedure to correct anisometropia in all of its forms. In this procedure, a

laser is used to cut and shape the cornea to provide a better refractive surface (U.S. Department

of Health & Human Services, 2011). Another related procedure is laser assisted sub epithelial

keratectomy, or LASEK (Autrata & Rehurek, 2004). For all intents and purposes, these

procedures are the same.

Strengths of LASIK surgery.

LASIK surgery is very effective at correcting anisometropia and in turn, amblyopia.

Autrata and Rehurek (2004) found that patients gained more visual acuity and bincocular

coordination with the surgery than with corrective lenses. It should be noted that the surgery in

itself did not improve amblyopia. After surgery or refractive adaptation, the patient was treated

with occlusion therapy (Autrata & Rehurek). Thus, LASIK is a technique used to facilitate other

treatments such as refractive adaptation or patching (Yin, Wang, Yu, Ren, & Chen, 2007).

LASIK surgery is the best option for treating severe amblyopia after other interventions have

failed.

Weaknesses of LASIK surgery.

While many people believe LASIK surgery is a risky option, the technique has been

refined to be quite safe. LASIK surgery does have risk factors such as under- or over-correction,

loss of acuity, or retinal detachment, complications arise is less than 1 percent of all procedures

(Federal Trade Commission, 2008; Arevalo et al., 2002. This surgery is invasive, so it should

only be used in other cases where treatment has failed. The Federal Trade Commission (2008)


15/24


also warns that most insurance plans do not cover this treatment, so cost might be a prohibitive

factor.

Strabismus surgery.

Like LASIK surgery is to anisometropia, Strabismus surgery is to strabismus. During this

operation, the muscle groups around the eye are strengthened or weakened in a manner that will

make the eyes converge properly (Flax, 1993). .

Strengths of strabismus surgery.

Unfortunately, this surgery has a functional cure rate of about 15 percent of amblyopic

patients (Flax, 1993). This rate is low, but it is still a possible option when other treatments have

failed. It seems that the most important benefit from this procedure is the chance of cosmetic

cure. Flax found that 43 percent of strabismic amblyopes experienced a corrected gaze. Even if

this cosmetic improvement does not increase functionality, the patient will still have higher self-

esteem due to the correction of the sometimes prominent lazy eye (Flax). Cosmetic

improvement of strabismus may lead to easier social development.

Weaknesses of strabismus surgery.

As I previously stated only 15 percent of amblyopes improve functionality. Unless the

patient is desperate or other factors are influencing the decision, surgery might not be the best

option due to its costliness, invasiveness, and effectiveness. The anesthetics commonly used in

the surgery also pose a problem. Up to 23 % have nausea and vomiting after the procedure,

sometimes severe enough to require hospitalization (Flax, 1993).

A Multi-Method Paradigm for Treating Amblyopia

Considering all of the aforementioned types of amblyopia and treatments, it is clear that a

proper method must be established. The best method will use treatment options that provide the


16/24


highest rate of success and compliance for the patient, considering each specific case of

amblyopia. If at all possible, weakness of each treatment and unnecessary procedures ought to be

avoided. My multi-method paradigm consists of 5 stages; diagnosis and debriefing, initial

treatment attempt with corrective lenses, rigorous treatment with virtual reality therapy, surgical

options and repeated attempt of treatment, and long term maintenance. These steps will comprise

what I believe is the most effective paradigm for treating unilateral amblyopia.

Diagnosis and Debriefing

The first step of the process is to diagnose the type and severity of amblyopia. Once these

details are known, the treatment schedule can be adjusted to maximize the chances of improving

visual acuity. Next, the patient (and his or her family if the patient is a minor) will be presented

with each treatment option, and why it is important to adhere to the intervention. This stage is

meant to give the patient (and the family) a thorough understanding of the critical period of

visual development, and why strictly following the regimen is vital to the improvement of

amblyopia. Hopefully, a better understanding of amblyopia and its treatment will create a higher

compliance rate, which will lead to more successful outcomes (Bhandari et al., 2012; Stewart,

Fielder et al., 2005).

Initial Treatment Attempt with Corrective Lenses

After the initial diagnosis and debriefing, all patients will start treatment with refractive

adaptation. Due to the fact that refractive adaptation with glasses or contact lenses is usually

effective for both anisometropic amblyopia and strabismic amblyopia (albeit less so), every

patient will start with a brief or extended course of treatment (which depends on severity, age,

and a number of other factors). Frequently, mild amblyopia will be greatly improved at this state,

as long as the patient is compliant with the procedure (Stewart, Fielder, et al. 2005). Even if the


17/24


mild amblyopia does not reach a satisfactory level of improvement or if the amblyopia is more

severe, this stage is still beneficial if small improvements are made. This will facilitate the

success of more rigorous treatment (in the same manner that improvements from LASIK surgery

facilitate success of other treatments in Yin et al. (2007)). If sufficient improvement is reached,

patients should skip ahead to the long term maintenance stage to ensure that the improvements

hold over time. If more work needs to be done, the patient continues to the rigorous treatment

with virtual reality stage.

Rigorous Treatment with Virtual Reality Therapy

This stage is most likely the most controversial. Based on all the previous studies, I must

argue that occlusion therapy be stopped in favor of virtual reality therapy. However, occlusion

therapy may still be used if all other treatment options fail. As concisely as I am able to express,

virtual reality should be chosen over occlusion therapy because occlusion therapy has no

advantage that virtual reality has, and virtual reality therapy is a binocular treatment with a much

higher compliance rate than occlusion therapy (Cleary et al., 2009; Stewart, Fielder et al. 2005;

Al-Zuhaibi et al., 2009).

Treatment in this stage will become more aggressive. While individual virtual reality

systems may vary, the I-BiT system of Eastgate et al. (2006) is a good place to start. The

ability to tailor all aspects of the treatment presentation to each individual subject will provide

the best likelihood of compliance and visual improvement. Mild to moderate cases should have

good success, and severe cases should have decent success rates as well. In addition,

anisometropic and strabismic amblyopia should both see improvement from this technique.

Patients who had success at this stage will begin long term maintenance, while cases without

improvement will begin discussing the surgical options stage.


18/24


Surgical Options and Repeated Attempt of Treatment

If all other options do not produce improvement, LASIK or strabismus surgery becomes

an option. If both the patient (and family, if applicable) and therapist agree that surgery should be

performed to correct vision, anisometropic and strabismic amblyopes will undergo their

respective surgery.

After the recovery from surgery, the patient will again be assessed for visual acuity. If the

amblyopia has finally been ameliorated, long term maintenance can begin. If results are still

unsatisfactory, the treatment regimen is repeated starting with the refractive adaptation phase

until the condition is improved.

Long Term Maintenance

Once the amblyopia has successfully been treated, a preventative maintenance schedule

will be established. This will likely be intermittent treatment with corrective lenses, or brief

virtual reality sessions. Long term follow up is essential to ensure that improved vision is

maintained.

Future Research and Conclusions

The effectiveness of virtual reality therapy must be researched more extensively. While

the current data provides great hope for the future of amblyopia treatment, the data pool is

relatively small. Much more extensive and controlled experimental research must be performed

before we are able to conclude that virtual reality therapy is a plausible treatment option.

Furthermore, the multi-method paradigm that I have presented must be evaluated in its

entirety. The success and compliance rates of the overall program must be compared to the

success and compliance rates of individual treatments alone using data from controlled


19/24


experimental studies. This research will either confirm or deny the multi-method approach as an

effective treatment paradigm.

If the multi-method paradigm is more successful that current research options,

practitioners ought to adopt it as the standard method for treating amblyopia. An improvement of

success rate by only 1 percent could mean improvement for hundreds of thousands of people

who would not have had success with current methods. Research must be done to discover if this

paradigm is worthy of being the standard treatment method because the potential benefits of an

improved system would improve the vision and quality of life of countless amblyopes.


20/24


References

Al-Zuhaibi, S., Al-Harthi, I., Cooymans, P., Al-Busaidi, A., Al-Farsi, Y., & Ganesh, A. (2009).

Compliance of amblyopic patients with occlusion therapy: A pilot study. Oman Journal

of Ophthalmology, 2(2), 67-72. doi: 10.4103/0974-620X.53035.

Arevalo, J. F., Ramirez, E., Suarez, E., Cortez, R., Ramirez, G., & Yepez, J. B. (2002). Retinal

detachment in myopic eyes after laser in situ keratomileusis.Journal of Refractive

Surgery, 18(6), 708-714. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

/pubmed/12458864.

Attebo, K., Mitchell, P., Cumming, R., Smith, W., Jolly, N., & Sparkes, R. (1998). Prevalence

and causes of amblyopia in an adult population. Ophthalmology, 105(1), 154-159. doi:

10.1016/S0161- 6420(98)91862-0.

Autrata, R., & Rehurek, J. (2004). Laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy and photorefractive

keratectomy versus conventional treatment of myopic anisometropic amblyopia in

children.Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, 30(1), 74-84. doi: 10.1016/S0886-

3350(03)00417-6.

Bhandari, G., Sharma, A. K., & Shrestha, G. S. (2012). Parental understanding and psychosocial

impact of occlusion therapy on amblyopic children and their parents.Journal of

Behavioral Optometry, 23(1), 3-8. Retrieved from: http://www.oepf.org/journal/pdf/jbo-

volume-23-issue-1-parental-understanding-and-psychosocial-impact-occlusion-therapy-a.

Bhola, R., Keech, R. V., Kutschke, P., Pfiefer, W., & Scott, W. E. (2006). Recurrence of

amblyopia after occlusion therapy. Ophthalmology, 113(11), 2097-2100. Retrieved from:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17074568


21/24


Chia, A., Dirani, M., Chan, Y. H., Gazzard, G., Au Eong, K., Selvaraj, P., Ling, Y. . . . Saw,

S.M. (2010). Prevalence of amblyopia and strabismus in young Singaporean Chinese

children. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 51(7), 3411-3417. Retrieved

from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20207979.

Cleary, M., Moody, A. D., Buchanan, A., Stewart, H., & Dutton, G. N. (2009). Assessment of a

computer-based treatment for older amblyopes: the Glasgow pilot study.Eye, 23, 124-

131. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17932508.

Eastgate, R. M., Griffiths, G. D., Waddingham, P. E., Moody, A. D., Butler, T. K. H., & Cobb,

S. V., et al (2006). Modified virtual reality technology for treatment of amblyopia.

Eye, 20, 370-374. Retrieved from:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15832182.Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection. (2008).Basik lasik: tips on lasik

eye surgery. Retrieved from: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/health/hea

04.pdf.

Flax, N. (1993). The treatment of strabismus in the four to ten year old child. Child and

Adolescent Social Work Journal, 10(5), 411-416. doi: 10.1007/BF00844678.

Flom, M., & Neumaier, R. W. (1966). Prevalence of amblyopia.Public Health Reports, 81(4),

329-341. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1919787/.

Gregson, R. (2002). Why are we so bad at treating amblyopia?. Eye, 16, 461-462. doi:

10.1038/sj.eye.6700102

Hess, R. F., Mansouri, B., & Thompson, B. (2010). A new binocular approach to the treatment of

amblyopia in adults well beyond the critical period of visual development. Restorative

Neurology and Neuroscience, 28, 1-10. doi: 10.3233/RNN-2010-0550.


22/24


Hiscox, F., Strong, N., Thompson, J. R., Minshull, C., & Woodruff, G. (1992). Occlusion for

amblyopia: a comprehensive survey of outcome.Eye, 6(3), 300-304. Retrieved from:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1446765.

Jeon, S. T., Maurer, D., & Lewis, T. L. (2012). The effect of video game training on the vision of

adults with bilateral deprivation amblyopia. Sensing and Perceiving, doi: 10.1163

/18784763-00002391.

Kivlin, J. D., & Flynn, J. T. (1981). Therapy of anisometropic amblyopia. Journal of Pediatric

Ophthalmology and Strabismus, 18(5), 47-56. Retrieved from: http://europepmc.org/

abstract/MED/7299612.

Leiba, H., Shimshoni, M., Oliver, M., Gottesman, N., & Levartovsky, S. (2001). Long-term

follow-up of occlusion therapy in amblyopia. Ophthamology, 108(9), 1552-1555. doi:

10.1016/S0161-6420(01)00697-2.

Medline Plus. (2012).Refractive errors. Retrieved from http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/

refractiveerrors.html.

Medline Plus. (2012). Strabismus. Retrieved from http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/

article /001004.html.

Moseley, M. J., Fielder, A. R., & Stewart, C. E. (2009). The optical treatment of

amblyopia. Optometry and Vision Science, 86(6), 629-633. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b01

3e3181a7b3e5.

Newsham, D. (2000). Parental non-concordance with occlusion therapy.British Journal of

Ophthalmology, 84, 957-962. doi: 10.1136/bjo.84.9.957.


23/24


Sireteanu, R., & Fronius, M. (1981). Naso-temporal asymmetries in human amblyopia:

Consequence of long-term interocular suppression. Vision Research, 21(7), 1055-1063.

doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(81)90010-9.

Stewart, C. E., Fielder, A. R., Stephens, D. A., & Moseley, M. J. (2005). Treatment of unilateral

amblyopia: Factors influencing visual outcome.Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual

Science, 46(9), 3152-3160. doi: 10.1167/iovs.05-0357.

Stewart, C. E., Moseley, M. J., Fielder, A. R., & Stephens, D. A. (2004). Refractive adaptation in

amblyopia: Quantification of effect and implications for practice.British Journal of

Ophthalmology, 2004(88), 1552-1556. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2004.044214.

U.S Department of Commerce, United States Census Bureau. (2012). U.S. & world population

clocks. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, U.S Food and Drug Administration.

(2011).LASIK. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedical

Procedures/SurgeryandLifeSupport/LASIK/default.htm.

Waddingham, P. E., Cobb, S. V., Eastgate, R. M., & Gregson, R. M. (2006, September). In Tony

Brooks (Chair). Virtual reality for interactive binocular treatment of amblyopia.

Symposium conducted at the meeting of the International Conference on Disability,

Virtual Reality and Associated Technologies, Esbjerg, Denmark. Retrieved from

http://www.icdvrat.reading.ac.uk/2006/papers/ICDVRAT2006_S06_N02_Waddingham_

et_al.pdf.

Webber, A. L., & Wood, J. (2005). Amblyopia: prevalence, natural history, functional effects

and treatment. Clinical and Experimental Optometry: Journal of the Australian


24/24


Optometrical Association, 88(6), 365-375. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

pubmed/16329744.

Wellesley, R. B. (1959). The problem of unilateral amblyopia.British Medical Journal, 1, 202-

206. doi: 10.1136/bmj.1.5116.202.

Wessels, I. F. (2011, March 16). Diplopia. Retrieved from http://emedicine.medscape.com/arti

cle/1214490-overview.

Yin, Z. Q., Wang, H., Yu, T., Ren, Q., & Chen, L. (2007). Facilitation of amblyopia management

by laser in situ keratomileusis in high anisometropic hyperopic and myopic children.

Journal of AAPOS, 11(6), 571-576. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

pubmed/17604197.

jacob sales

Documents