屈光参差性弱视治愈前后双眼视觉的检测与分析

目的:了解屈光参差性弱视治愈前后双眼视觉状况。方法:对56例103眼屈光参差性弱视儿童,分别在治疗前和基本治愈后检测其立体视锐度及同视机三级视功能。结果:基本治愈前后:同时视功能无明显差异(P>0.05);立体视锐度有显著性差异(P<0.01);融合功能和定性远立体视也有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:屈光参差性弱视不仅影响视力同时也影响双眼视觉发育,随着视力提高其双眼视功能也有明显改善,所以在弱视治疗时应注重双眼视觉的建立与完善。     

弱视遮盖治疗对双眼视觉的影响

目的观察弱视患儿遮盖疗法对双眼视觉的影响。方法对42例双眼矫正视力相差2行以上的屈光不正性和屈光参差性弱视儿童行遮盖治疗,治疗前后检测其立体视锐度及三级功能。结果遮盖治疗前后具有黄斑中心凹立体视锐度的人数比例分别为0、26.19,黄斑立体视锐度的比例分别为30.95、59.52,差异均有统计学意义(χ2=12.598,P=0.000;χ2=6.920,P=0.009)。遮盖前后具有正常融合范围的人数比例分别为26.20、57.14,具有定性远立体视觉的分别为54.76和88.10,差异均有统计学意义(χ2=8.278,P=0.024;χ2=11.433,P=0.029)。结论弱视经遮盖治疗后对双眼视觉的发育影响可能性小。随着视力的提高,立体视锐度、融合功能和远立体视觉也有显著的改善。     

屈光参差性弱视儿童治愈后的双眼视觉研究

【摘要】 目的 了解屈光参差性弱视儿童治愈后双眼视觉状况。设计 回顾性病例系列。研究对象 屈光参差性弱视儿童74例,正常儿童74例。方法 采用同视机和颜少明《立体视觉检查图》对74例 经治疗矫正视力已≥0.9的屈光参差性弱视儿童和74例正常儿童的双眼视觉功能进行检测。主要指 标  同时知觉、远融合范围、定性远立体视、 立体视锐度。结果 （1）屈光参差性弱视儿童基本 治愈后其远立体视低于正常儿童（χ2 =11.331,P=0.001）;同时视（χ2 =1.855,P=0.173）及 远融合范围（χ2 =1.012,P=0.603）无明显差异。（2）屈光参差性弱视儿童基本治愈后其近立体 视锐度明显低于正常儿童（χ2 =27.759,P=0.000）。（3）屈光参差性弱视程度越轻,近立体视 锐度的改善越显著（χ2 =17.116,P=0.009）;而同时视（χ2 =0.879,P=0.644）、远融合范围 （χ2 =7.930,P=0.094）、远立体视（χ2 =2.854,P=0.240）的改善无明显差异。结论 屈光参 差性弱视严重影响立体视觉的发育。即使治疗后视力达到正常,其立体视仍低于正常儿童。屈光参 差程度越重,对近立体视锐度的影响越显著。（眼科,2012, 21: 395-397）     

屈光参差性弱视治疗前后双眼视觉的临床观察

目的 了解屈光参差性弱视儿童治疗前及矫正视力正常后双眼视觉的状况.设计回顾性病例系列.研究对象屈光参差性弱视儿童53例.方法 对53例屈光参差性弱视儿童分别在治疗前及矫正视力≥0.9后采用颜少明<立体视觉检查图>和同视机检测其双眼视觉功能.主要指标立体视锐度、交叉视差、非交叉视差立体视觉,同时知觉、远融合范围,定性远立体视.结果 屈光参差与弱视(r=0.613)、弱视与立体视(r=0.422)及屈光参差与立体视均具有相关性(r=354).弱视患儿矫正视力正常后其近立体视锐度、交叉视差、非交叉视差立体视觉均较治疗前有显著改善,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01).弱视患儿矫正视力正常后其同时视功能较治疗前无明显差异(P=0.37);远融合范围及远立体视均较治疗前有显著改善,差异有统计学意义(远融合范围P=0.03,远立体视P＜0.01).结论 屈光参差、弱视、立体视觉三者之间具有相关性.屈光参差性弱视影响融合和立体视觉的发育.随着视力的提高,双眼视觉有显著改善.     

LASIK矫治高度屈光参差性弱视儿童的立体视觉研究

目的观察儿童高度屈光参差性弱视患者接受LASIK后立体视觉的恢复情况及其矫治儿童高度屈光参差性弱视的疗效。设计前瞻性非随机自身对照观察。研究对象36例36眼行LASIK手术的6～12岁高度屈光参差性弱视儿童患者。方法患者在LASIK术前、术后3、6及12个月检查视力、屈光度,采用颜氏立体视觉检查图检查立体视觉。立体视锐度≤60”为有中央立体视;80＂-800”为有周边立体视;〉800”为立体视盲。按最佳矫正视力分为轻、中、重度弱视三组。主要指标立体视锐度。结果LASIK术后12个月裸眼视力、最佳矫正视力、屈光参差程度较术前均明显改善（P均〈0．05）。术前、术后6个月和术后12个月立体视盲分别占55．6％（20例）、33．3％（12例）和16．7％（6例）（P均〈0．05）。术后12个月轻度弱视组100％恢复了立体视,其中40．0％（8例）恢复了中央立体视;中度弱视组有10．0％（1例）恢复了中央立体视,70．0％（7例）恢复了周边立体视;而重度弱视组仅33．3％（2例）恢复了周边立体视（P均〈0．05）。术后12个月,年龄〈10岁者与≥10岁者分别有89．5％、76．5％恢复了立体视（P=0．351）。结论屈光参差性弱视儿童立体视建立与弱视程度、弱视治疗时间有关。对于不能耐受戴镜矫正的严重屈光参差性弱视患儿,LASIK手术是一种安全、有效的治疗手段,术后可能恢复正常或部分立体视。     

屈光参差性弱视儿童的双眼视功能

目的观察屈光参差性弱视儿童的双眼视功能以及屈光参差中立体视和融像之间的关系。方法选择隐性斜视小于4△的5～12岁屈光参差儿童46例。对以上所选病例．测定最佳矫正视力、屈光状态及矫正后TNO立体视及Worth四点、Bagolini线状镜、4D三棱镜检查。并对测量数据进行统计学分析。结果Bagolini线状镜检查中所有患者均有融像功能：Worth四点检查中近距39例有融像．远距22例患者有融像：TNO立体视检查中37例视锐度值下降．其中19例无立体视。4D三棱镜检查中34例有中心抑制暗点．融像功能减弱与立体视锐度下降、屈光参差程度及弱视程度有关，弱视与立体视的相关性大于屈光参差与立体视的相关性。立体视锐度与融像能力的强弱有关。结论双眼视功能随着屈光参差程度和弱视程度的增加而下降。融像功能检查中．Bagolini线状镜提示融合状态，Worth四点提示融合强度。中心抑制暗点可能是导致立体视和双眼视功能下降的原因。     

左旋多巴对弱视拥挤现象及双眼间相互作用的影响

目的观察息宁（左旋多巴／卡比多巴）对难治性屈光参差性弱视患儿拥挤现象及双眼间相互作用的影响,探讨左旋多巴治疗弱视的机理。方法给３２名５～１５岁、经传统方法治疗至少６个月无效的屈光参差性弱视患儿口服息宁,每公斤体重左旋多巴１ｍｇ、卡比多巴０２５ｍｇ,每日３次,连续６０天。观察分析服药后单字Ｅ、拥挤Ｅ字视力和分视ＶＥＰＢ／Ｍ值的变化。结果（１）弱视眼及优势眼单字、拥挤视力之差变化均无显著性（Ｐ＞００５）。（２）Ｂ／Ｍ值在服药前后变化无显著性（Ｐ＞００５）。结论左旋多巴对弱视分视ＶＥＰ表现的异常双眼间相互作用无显著影响,认为左旋多巴治疗弱视的机理是解除视觉抑制的假设尚待进一步研究证实。     

视知觉学习联合遮盖治疗屈光参差性弱视的初期临床观察

目的　探讨视知觉学习联合遮盖治疗屈光参差性弱视的临床效果。方法　回顾性病例系列研究。收集２００６年７月至２０１１年６月在广西视光中心接受视知觉学习联合遮盖治疗达１ａ的８岁以上３１例屈光参差性弱视患者的临床资料,包括患者的性别、年龄、注视性质、眼位、治疗前后的最佳矫正视力、屈光度等数据。对患者治疗过程中的最佳矫正视力、屈光度等重复测量资料使用ＳＰＳＳ１３．０统计软件一般线性模型（Ｇｅｎｅｒａｌｌｉｎｅａｒｍｏｄｅｌ）的ＲｅｐｅａｔｅｄＭｅａｓｕｒｅｓ过程进行方差分析,比较患者的最佳矫正视力和屈光度变化情况;同时对治疗效果的持久性进行评估。结果　经过１ａ的联合治疗,弱视眼视力平均提高了（３．９±１．８）行ＬｏｇＭＡＲ视力（Ｐ＜０．０１）,最佳矫正视力改善≥２行者达１００．０％,基本治愈率达２５．８％;联合治疗终止后１ａ,８７．０％的患者保持了治疗效果,平均最佳矫正视力下降０．０３行ＬｏｇＭＡＲ视力;对侧眼在联合治疗前后始终保持在正常视力水平。视知觉学习联合遮盖治疗前后,弱视眼和对侧眼的等效球镜值均缓慢降低:轻度弱视眼的等效球镜值在各时间点差异无统计学意义（Ｐ＞００５）;中度、重度弱视眼的等效球镜在治疗中和治疗后均较治疗前降低（均为Ｐ＜０．０５）;对侧眼的等效球镜在治疗后较治疗前和治疗中降低（均为Ｐ＜０．０５）。结论　视知觉学习联合遮盖治疗可有效改善屈光参差性弱视患者弱视眼的最佳矫正视力,并能使治疗效果长期保持,但其基本治愈率有待提高。     

儿童弱视黄斑阈值和瞳孔传入功能的研究

目的观察弱视儿童的黄斑光敏感度（ｍａｃｕｌａｒｌｉｇｈｔｓｅｎｓｉｔｉｖｉｔｙ，ＭＬＳ）和相对性传入性瞳孔缺陷（ｒｅｌａｔｉｖｅａｆｅｒｅｎｔｐｕｐｉｌａｒｙｄｅｆｅｃｔ，ＲＡＰＤ）。方法应用静态视野技术和光摆实验对正常组、屈光参差性和屈光不正性弱视的学龄儿童进行检查。结果弱视眼ＭＬＳ降低（Ｐ＜０．００１）。屈光参差性弱视眼的对侧眼ＭＬＳ也较正常组低（０．０１＜Ｐ＜０．０５）。屈光参差性弱视中，ＲＡＰＤ阳性者占３４．２９％。结论弱视存在Ｘ通道功能缺陷。单眼弱视与双眼弱视发病机制可能不同。ＭＬＳ对估计预后有帮助。ＲＡＰＤ阳性，支持弱视的周边发生学说。屈光参差性弱视眼的对侧眼处于不正常状态。     

屈光参差与双眼视觉相关性的临床观察

目的:观察远、近视性屈光参差对患者双眼视功能的影响。方法:采用颜少明等的《立体视觉检查图》和同视机,对矫正视力≥0.9的近视和远视性屈光参差患者174例,分别测定其近立体视和同视机三级视功能。结果:(1)远、近视性屈光参差患者视力矫正后双眼视功能明显好于裸眼,两者矫正前后比较差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。(2)矫正后近视性屈光参差近立体视及融合功能正常者的例数明显多于远视性屈光参差者(P均=0.000);远视性屈光参差远立体视功能正常者的例数明显多于近视性屈光参差者(P=0.000)。(3)矫正后近视性屈光参差者的近立体视锐度与屈光参差差值大小相关(P=0.000),屈光参差差值越大,近立体视功能越差;远视性屈光参差者的近立体视锐度与屈光参差差值大小相关性不明显(P=0.159)。(4)远、近视性屈光参差患者矫正后,近立体视正常患者的构成比小于正常范围为17%及44%。结论:(1)远、近视性屈光参差对双眼视功能的影响不相同,远视性屈光参差对双眼视功能的影响大于近视性屈光参差。(2)无论近视或远视性屈光参差,其对双眼视觉的损害是明显的。     

Monocular and binocular reading performance in children with microstrabismic amblyopia

AIM: To evaluate if functionally relevant deficits in reading performance exist in children with essential microstrabismic amblyopia by comparing the monocular and binocular reading performance with the reading performance of normal sighted children with full visual acuity in both eyes. METHODS: The reading performance of 40 children (mean age 11.6 (SD 1.4) years) was evaluated monocularly and binocularly in randomised order, using standardised reading charts for the simultaneous determination of reading acuity and speed. 20 of the tested children were under treatment for unilateral microstrabismic amblyopia (visual acuity in the amblyopic eyes: logMAR 0.19 (0.15); fellow eyes -0.1 (0.07)); the others were normal sighted controls (visual acuity in the right eyes -0.04 (0.15); left eyes -0.08 (0.07)). RESULTS: In respect of the binocular maximum reading speed (MRS), significant differences were found between the children with microstrabismic amblyopia and the normal controls (p = 0.03): whereas the controls achieved a binocular MRS of 200.4 (11) wpm (words per minute), the children with unilateral amblyopia achieved only a binocular MRS of 172.9 (43.9) wpm. No significant differences between the two groups were found in respect of the binocular logMAR visual acuity and reading acuity (p>0.05). For the monocular reading performance, significant impairment was found in the amblyopic eyes, whereas no significant differences were found between the sound fellow eyes of the amblyopic children and the control group. CONCLUSION: In binocular MRS, significant differences could be found between children with microstrabismic amblyopia and normal controls. This result indicates the presence of a functionally relevant reading impairment, even though the binocular visual acuity and reading acuity were both comparable with the control group.     

Long-term changes in visual acuity and refractive error in amblyopes.

PURPOSE: To report long-term changes in visual acuity and refractive error for strabismic, anisometropic, and isoametropic amblyopes. METHODS: Records of patients with strabismic amblyopia, anisometropic amblyopia, and isoametropic amblyopia who were treated from 1983 to 1993 were reviewed. Excluded were patients having ocular or neurological diseases, developmental delay, and follow-up <4 years after treatment cessation. Data included best-correctable visual acuity and spherical equivalent refractive error of the amblyopic and the nonamblyopic eye at pretreatment, posttreatment, and long-term follow-up. RESULTS: Records for 61 patients met the inclusion criteria. For strabismic amblyopia (n = 22), mean visual acuity in amblyopic and nonamblyopic eyes improved 0.36 and 0.05 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) units after a mean treatment time of 1 year. At long-term follow-up (mean = 9.3 years after treatment), visual acuity in the amblyopic eye regressed 0.09 logMAR and visual acuity in the nonamblyopic eye improved 0.10 logMAR units. For anisometropic amblyopia (n = 26), mean visual acuity in amblyopic and nonamblyopic eyes improved 0.30 and 0.02 logMAR units, respectively, after a mean treatment period of 1.1 year. At the long-term follow-up visit (mean = 7.1 years after treatment), visual acuity in the amblyopic eye regressed 0.09 logMAR unit and in the nonamblyopic eye improved 0.03 logMAR unit. Repeated-measures analysis of variance showed no significant effect of type of amblyopia on visual acuity of the amblyopic eye and a significant effect of visit due to treatment but not regression. The changes in visual acuity in the nonamblyopic eye from the pretreatment to the follow-up visit were significant and interacted with type, the changes being larger in strabismic amblyopia. For strabismic amblyopia, the mean refractive error in amblyopic and nonamblyopic eyes changed from +2.15 D and +1.85 D, respectively, initially to +0.45 D and +0.58 D, respectively, at the follow-up visit. For anisometropic amblyopia, the mean refractive error in amblyopic and nonamblyopic eyes changed from +1.04 D and +0.12 D, respectively, initially to +0.23 D and -0.94 D, respectively, at the follow-up visit. The effect of visit on amblyopic and nonamblyopic refractive errors was significant. For isoametropic amblyopia (n = 13), visual acuity in both right and left eyes initially was 0.39 logMAR unit and improved to 0.14 logMAR unit in each eye after a mean follow-up of 8.9 years. Refractive error in the right and the left eyes changed from -1.22 D and -1.14 D, respectively, to -2.68 D and -2.56 D, respectively, at follow-up. These differences were all significant. CONCLUSIONS: After treatment and with long-term follow up, visual acuity regresses but not significantly in the amblyopic eye in strabismic amblyopia and anisometropic amblyopia. At the same time, visual acuity in the nonamblyopic eye improves slightly. Visual acuity also improves significantly over time in isoametropic amblyopia. The refractive error of both amblyopic and nonamblyopic eyes tends to show a myopic shift regardless of the type of amblyopia.     

A pilot study of anisometropic amblyopia improved in adults and children by perceptual learning: an alternative treatment to patching

BACKGROUND: To compare the effects of perceptual learning or patching on improving visual acuity and contrast sensitivity in patients with anisometropic amblyopia. METHODS: Patients with anisometropic amblyopia received either patching or perceptual learning treatment. Corrected amblyopic logMAR visual acuity and contrast sensitivity function were measured at four-weekly intervals until visual acuity stabilized or amblyopia resolved. Improvements in visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and resolution of amblyopia were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The mean visual acuities of the amblyopic eyes improved by 0.34 logMAR (95% CI: 0.22-0.47 logMAR) with patching and 0.25 logMAR (95% CI: 0.16-0.35 logMAR) with perceptual learning (p=0.125). Resolution of amblyopia was achieved in 10 of 26 patients (38%) in the perceptual learning group and 17 of 27 patients (63%) in the patching group (p=0.809). Amblyopia improved by two or more lines in 20 of 26 (76%) patients in the perceptual learning group and 26 of 27 (96%) patients in the patching group (p=0.0001). The mean time for patching was 37.3 weeks (522.2 h) and the average number of training sessions in the perceptual learning group was 48 (29.5 h) (p=0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Visual acuity can be improved with perceptual learning and patching in older children and adult patients with anisometropic amblyopia. The improvements in visual acuity achieved with patching were one line better than those achieved with perceptual learning. Perceptual learning might provide an alternative treatment in patients with anisometropic amblyopia.     

Evaluation of visual acuity in a historical cohort of 137 patients treated for amblyopia by occlusion 30-35 years ago

BACKGROUND: Opinions differ on the course of the visual acuity in the amblyopic eye after cessation of occlusion therapy. This study evaluated visual acuity in a historical cohort treated for amblyopia with occlusion therapy 30-35 years ago. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1968 and 1975, 1250 patients had been treated by the orthoptist in the Waterland Hospital in Purmerend, The Netherlands. Of these, 471 received occlusion treatment for amblyopia (prevalence 5.0%, after comparison with the local birth rate). We were able to contact 203 of these patients, 137 were orthoptically re-examined in 2003. We correlated the current visual acuity with the cause of amblyopia, the age at start and end of treatment, the visual acuity at start and end of treatment, fixation, binocular vision and refractive errors. RESULTS: Mean age at the start of treatment was 5.4 +/- 1.9 years, 7.4 +/- 1.7 years at the end and 37 +/- 2.7 years at follow-up. Current visual acuity in the amblyopic eye was correlated with a low visual acuity at the start (p < 0.0001) and end (p < 0.0001) of occlusion therapy, an eccentric fixation (p < 0.0001), and the cause of amblyopia (p = 0.005). At the end of the treatment, patients with a strabismic amblyopia (n = 98) had a visual acuity in the amblyopic eye of 0.29 logMAR +/- 0.3, and in 2003 0.27 +/- 0.3 logMAR. In patients with an anisometropic amblyopia (> 1 D, n = 16) visual acuity had decreased from 0.17 +/- 0.23 logMAR to 0.21 logMAR +/- 0.23. In patients with both strabismic and anisometropic amblyopia (n = 23), visual acuity had decreased from 0.52 logMAR +/- 0.54 to 0.65 logMAR +/- 0.54. Overall, acuity had decreased in 54 patients (39%) after cessation of treatment. Of these, 18 patients had an acuity decrease to less than 50% of their acuity at the end of treatment. In 15 of these 18 patients anisohypermetropia had increased. CONCLUSIONS: A decrease in visual acuity after cessation of occlusion therapy occurred in patients with a combined cause of amblyopia or with an increase in anisohypermetropia.     

Refractive adaptation in amblyopia: quantification of effect and implications for practice

AIM: To describe the visual response to spectacle correction ("refractive adaptation") for children with unilateral amblyopia as a function of age, type of amblyopia, and category of refractive error. METHOD: Measurement of corrected amblyopic and fellow eye logMAR visual acuity in newly diagnosed children. Measurements repeated at 6 weekly intervals for a total 18 weeks. RESULTS: Data were collected from 65 children of mean (SD) age 5.1 (1.4) years with previously untreated amblyopia and significant refractive error. Amblyopia was associated with anisometropia in 18 (5.5 (1.4) years), strabismus in 16 (4.2 (0.98) years), and mixed in 31 (5.2 (1.5) years) of the study participants. Mean (SD) corrected visual acuity of amblyopic eyes improved significantly (p<0.001) from 0.67 (0.38) to 0.43 (0.37) logMAR: a mean improvement of 0.24 (0.18), range 0.0-0.6 log units. Change in logMAR visual acuity did not significantly differ as a function of amblyopia type (p = 0.29) (anisometropia 0.22 (0.13); mixed 0.18 (0.14); strabismic 0.30 (0.24)) or for age (p = 0.38) ("under 4 years" 0.23 (0.18); "4-6 years" 0.24 (0.20); "over 6 years" 0.16 (0.23)). CONCLUSION: Refractive adaptation is a distinct component of amblyopia treatment. To appropriately evaluate mainstream therapies such as occlusion and penalisation, the beneficial effects of refractive adaptation need to be fully differentiated. A consequence for clinical practice is that children may start occlusion with improved visual acuity, possibly enhancing compliance, and in some cases unnecessary patching will be avoided.     

Efficacy of occlusion for strabismic amblyopia: can an optimal duration be identified?

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The study of occlusion efficacy in amblyopia has been hampered by the use of non-logMAR acuity tests and a failure to assess threshold acuity for both eyes. These issues are addressed in the current study which compares the effect of spectacles alone and spectacles in combination with occlusion, with the use of the logMAR crowded test. METHODS: Changes in uniocular and interocular acuity differences were compared for two age matched groups of previously untreated children with strabismic amblyopia: one compliant with spectacles only (n = 17, mean 6.2 (SD 2.5) years) and the other with spectacles and occlusion (n = 69, mean 5.1 (1) years) over a 1 year period. Changes in logMAR acuity were also analysed for a larger occluded group (n = 119) in response to successive 200 hour blocks of occlusion up to > or =1000 hours, in an attempt to isolate an optimal occlusion regime. RESULTS: Visual acuity improved for more of the amblyopic eyes of the occluded (74%) than the spectacles only group (59%), and only one child from the latter group deteriorated. Mean visual acuity improved for both eyes of both treatment groups, but the change was significantly larger for the strabismic eyes of the occluded group overall and within the first 6 month period (p <0. 05). Occlusion was only effective for the first 400 hours worn. Subsequent visual improvement was bilateral and symmetrical. CONCLUSION: Occlusion is more effective in the treatment of strabismic amblyopia than spectacles alone, and the effect is optimal within the first 6 months of wear. In terms of occlusion duration, maximal improvement occurs in response to 400 hours of occlusion wear or less, and to full time occlusion. Visual maturation continues, but is retarded for amblyopic eyes.     

儿童弱视与屈光不正

本文名分析了3099例2.5～14岁儿童的屈光状态.资料表明:非斜视者的屈光不正随着年龄增长,远视的发生和程度逐渐减少而近视的发生和程度逐渐增加。双眼屈光不正性弱视者,中、量度弱视的高、中度远视和近视比轻度弱视者多.单跟屈光不正性弱视者,高、中度远视和高度近视比非弱视眼的多.双眼内斜视性弱视的不同年龄和不同程度弱视的屈光分布无显著差异.单眼斜视性弱视的屈光分布与非弱视眼比,无显著差异.本文结果揭示屈光不正性弱视与高度屈光不正有关;眼位偏斜可能为斜视性弱视的主要原因.     

弱视儿童双眼视诱发电位的临床研究

目的　研究弱视对儿童双眼视及VEP双眼总和的影响。以便对弱视儿童双眼间的相互作用及双眼视觉功能异常程度进行大体了解。方法　对 5 4名正常儿童及 41名不伴有斜视的弱视儿童VEP的双眼总和 (VEPBS)进行探讨研究。结果　弱视儿童组的双眼总和低于正常组。尤其是无双眼视的弱视儿童双眼总和明显低于正常对照组 ,并且波形有异常 ,可显示双眼间有抑制。并发现弱视程度与双眼总和VEP反应之间不存在一致性。结论　在不伴有斜视的情况下 ,对弱视儿童进行双眼总和VEP反应测定 ,可以反映弱视仍是损害双眼视功能的重要因素。同时证明视觉诱发电位双眼总和能反映视功能状况 ,对双眼视功能的评价具有一定价值     

不同程度弱视儿童双眼视差信息的变化

目的 评估弱视儿童的双眼视差信息改变。设计 前瞻性病例系列。研究对象 眼位正常的轻度、中度、重度弱视儿童,各30例。方法 应用基于计算机平台的视感知觉检查方法对弱视儿童的双眼视差信息进行量化检测。分别测定随机点0阶视差、线条0阶视差、2阶视差、随机点动态1阶视差。主要指标 视差测量值或通过百分比。结果 轻度、中度、重度弱视儿童随机点0阶视差达100＂的比例分别为43.3%、16.7%、0%（χ2=25.550,P=0.000）;线条0阶视差达100＂的比例分别为83.3%、50.0%、13.3%（χ2=30.835,P=0.000）,2阶视差正确率达100＂的比例分别为86.7%、80.0%、40.0%（χ2=22.144,P=0.000）,随机点动态1阶视差低速通过者的比例分别为80.0%、50.0%、13.3%（χ2=27.379,P=0.000）。结论 眼位正位的弱视儿童其双眼视差信息均存在异常,弱视程度越深,异常越严重。