Journals / Türk Oftalmoloji Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 51 - Sayı: 3

Is Fixation Preference a Potential Indicator of Macular Function in Children?

Fiksasyon Tercihi Çocuklarda Maküler Fonksiyonun Olası Bir Göstergesi midir?

Pages
151–155
Publication Date
2022-11-06
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Although amblyopia is typically considered a cortical phenomenon, future larger studies are needed to investigate the relationship between fixation preference and macular electrophysiological function.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: Fixation preference testing is widely used to detect amblyopia, particularly in preverbal children.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: The study included 11 children with strabismus.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Although amblyopia is typically considered a cortical phenomenon, future larger studies are needed to investigate the relationship between fixation preference and macular electrophysiological function.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objectives: Fixation preference testing is widely used to detect amblyopia, particularly in preverbal children. Pattern electroretinogram (pERG) is an electrophysiological test which is a sensitive indicator of macular function. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between fixation preference and macular function on pERG in children with strabismus. Materials and Methods: The study included 11 children with strabismus. All underwent ophthalmological examination including fixation preference by binocular fixation pattern test, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) assessment, and pERG. Results: The mean age of the patients was 10.09±1.18 years. All patients had unilateral fixation. The mean BCVA was 0.85±0.17 in preferred and 0.48±0.19 in non-preferred eyes (p=0.003). The mean p50 amplitude was 6.07±2.06 μV in preferred and 5.29±2.20 μV in non-preferred eyes (p=0.203), and the mean N95 amplitude was 8.27±2.86 μV and 8.03±3.24 μV respectively (p=0.594). BCVA was correlated with p50 and N95 amplitudes in the non-preferred eyes (p=0.023 and p=0.014). Interocular BCVA difference was correlated with interocular P50 amplitude difference (r=0.688, p=0.019). Conclusion: Although amblyopia is typically considered a cortical phenomenon, future larger studies are needed to investigate the relationship between fixation preference and macular electrophysiological function.

Özet

Amaç: Fiksasyon tercihi testi özellikle konuşma öncesi dönemdeki çocuklarda olmak üzere ambliyopi tespiti için yaygın olarak kullanılmaktadır. Patern elektroretinogram (pERG) maküler fonksiyonu hassas olarak gösteren elektrofizyolojik bir testtir. Bu çalışmanın amacı şaşılığı olan çocuklarda fiksasyon tercihi ile pERG’deki maküler fonksiyonun ilişkisini araştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmaya şaşılığı olan 11 çocuk dahil edilmiştir. Tüm hastalara binoküler fiksasyon paterni testi, en iyi düzeltilmiş görme keskinliği (EİDGK) ve pERG’yi içeren oftalmolojik muayene yapılmıştır. Bulgular: Hasta yaşı ortalama 10,09±1,18 yıl idi. Tüm hastaların unilateral fiksasyonu vardı. Ortalama EİDGK tercih edilen gözlerde 0,85±0,17, tercih edilmeyen gözlerde ise 0,48±0,19 idi (p=0,003). Ortalama P50 amplitüdü tercih edilen gözlerde 6,07±2,06 μV, tercih edilmeyen gözlerde 5,29±2,20 μV (p=0,203), ortalama N95 amplitüdü ise sırasıyla 8,27±2,86 μV ve 8,03±3,24 μV olarak bulundu (p=0,594). Tercih edilmeyen gözlerde EİDGK, P50 ve N95 amplitüdleri arasında korelasyon saptandı (p=0,023 ve p=0,014). İki göz arasındaki EİDGK farkı ile iki göz arasındaki P50 amplitüdü farkının ilişkili olduğu belirlendi (r=0,688, p=0,019). Sonuç: Ambliyopi temel olarak kortikal bir olay olarak kabul ediliyor olsa da fiksasyon tercihi ile makülanın elektrofizyolojik fonksiyonu arasındaki ilişkiyi değerlendirecek başka ve geniş çalışmalara ihtiyaç vardır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARAKAYA, J., ŞEKEROĞLU, H. T., BİLGİÇ, A. A. (2022). Is Fixation Preference a Potential Indicator of Macular Function in Children?. Türk Oftalmoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 51 - Sayı: 3, 151–155. https://ajindex.com/articles/637594

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Holmes JM, Clarke MP. Amblyopia. Lancet. 2006;367:1343-1351
  2. Burggraaf F, Verkaik-Rijneveld MC, Wubbels RJ, de Jongh E. Is the 15Δ Base in Prism Test Reliable for Detection of Amblyopia in Anisometropic Patients? Strabismus. 2017;25:160-165
  3. Wallace DK. Fixation preference tests for amblyopia: invaluable, useless, or somewhere in the middle?. J AAPOS. 2010;14:201-202
  4. Cotter SA, Tarczy-Hornoch K, Song E, Lin J, Borchert M, Azen SP, Varma R; Multi-Ethnic Pediatric Eye Disease Study Group. Fixation preference and visual acuity testing in a population based cohort of preschool children with amblyopia risk factors. Ophthalmology. 2009;116:145-153
  5. Robson AG, Nilsson J, Li S, Jalali S, Fulton AB, Tormene AP, Holder GE, Brodie SE. ISCEV guide to visual electrodiagnostic procedures. Doc Ophthalmol. 2018;136:1-26
  6. Bach M, Brigell MG, Hawlina M, Holder GE, Johnson MA, McCulloch DL, Meigen T, Viswanathan S. ISCEV standard for clinical pattern electroretinography (PERG): 2012 update. Doc Ophthalmol. 2013;126:1-7
  7. Wallace DK. Tests of fixation preference for amblyopia. Am Orthopt J. 2005;55:76-81
  8. Knapp P, Moore S. Diagnostic procedures in an orthoptic evaluation. Am Orthopt J. 1962;12:63-69
  9. Zipf RF. Binocular fixation pattern. Arch Ophthalmol. 1976;94:401-405
  10. Wright KW, Edelman PM, Walonker F, Yiu S. Reliability of fixation preference testing in diagnosing amblyopia. Arch Ophthalmol. 1986;104:549-553
  11. Attarzadeh A, Hoseinirad A, Farvardin M, Talebnejad MR, Alipour A. Reliability of fixation preference for detecting amblyopia in strabismic patients. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2009;4:160-163
  12. Şener EC, Mocan MC, Gedik S, Ergin A, Sanaç AS. The reliability of grading the fixation preference test for the assessment of interocular visual acuity differences in patients with strabismus. J AAPOS. 2002;6:191-194
  13. Friedman DS, Katz J, Repka MX, Giordano L, Ibironke J, Hawse P, Tielsch JM. Lack of concordance between fixation preference and HOTV optotype visual acuity in preschool children: the Baltimore Pediatric Eye Disease Study. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:1796-1799
  14. Erkan Turan K, Taylan Sekeroglu H, Karahan S, Sanac AS. Fixation preference test: reliability for the detection of amblyopia in patients with strabismus and interexaminer agreement. Int Ophthalmol. 2017;37:1305-1310
  15. Procianoy L, Procianoy E. The accuracy of binocular fixation preference for the diagnosis of strabismic amblyopia. J AAPOS. 2010;14:205-210
  16. AlHarkan