Scheiman Mitchell, Mitchell G Lynn, Cotter Susan, Kulp Marjean Taylor, Cooper Jeffrey, Rouse Michael, Borsting Eric, London Richard, Wensveen Janice
Eye Institute, Pennsylvania College of Optometry, Philadelphia, PA 19141,
Optom Vis Sci. 2005 Jul;82(7):583-95. doi: 10.1097/01.opx.0000171331.36871.2f.
: The purpose of this article is to compare vision therapy/orthoptics, pencil pushups, and placebo vision therapy/orthoptics as treatments for symptomatic convergence insufficiency in adults 19 to 30 years of age.
: In a randomized, multicenter clinical trial, 46 adults 19 to 30 years of age with symptomatic convergence insufficiency were randomly assigned to receive 12 weeks of office-based vision therapy/orthoptics, office-based placebo vision therapy/orthoptics, or home-based pencil pushups. The primary outcome measure was the symptom score on the Convergence Insufficiency Symptom Survey. Secondary outcome measures were the near point of convergence and positive fusional vergence at near.
: Only patients in the vision therapy/orthoptics group demonstrated statistically and clinically significant changes in the near point of convergence (12.8 cm to 5.3 cm, p = 0.002) and positive fusional vergence at near (11.3Delta to 29.7Delta, p = 0.001). Patients in all three treatment arms demonstrated statistically significant improvement in symptoms with 42% in office-based vision therapy/orthoptics, 31% in office-based placebo vision therapy/orthoptics, and 20% in home-based pencil pushups achieving a score <21 (our predetermined criteria for elimination of symptoms) at the 12-week visit.
: In this study, vision therapy/orthoptics was the only treatment that produced clinically significant improvements in the near point of convergence and positive fusional vergence. However, over half of the patients in this group (58%) were still symptomatic at the end of treatment, although their symptoms were significantly reduced. All three groups demonstrated statistically significant changes in symptoms with 42% in office-based vision therapy/orthoptics, 31% in office-based placebo vision therapy/orthoptics, and 20% in home-based pencil push-ups meeting our criteria for elimination of symptoms.
本文旨在比较视觉治疗/视光学矫正、铅笔操以及安慰剂视觉治疗/视光学矫正对19至30岁有症状的成人集合不足的治疗效果。
在一项随机、多中心临床试验中,46名年龄在19至30岁、有症状的集合不足的成人被随机分配接受为期12周的门诊视觉治疗/视光学矫正、门诊安慰剂视觉治疗/视光学矫正或家庭式铅笔操训练。主要结局指标是集合不足症状调查的症状评分。次要结局指标是近距集合近点和近距正融像性聚散。
只有视觉治疗/视光学矫正组的患者在近距集合近点(从12.8厘米至5.3厘米,p = 0.002)和近距正融像性聚散(从11.3棱镜度至29.7棱镜度,p = 0.001)方面显示出统计学和临床意义上的显著变化。所有三个治疗组的患者症状均有统计学意义上的改善,在12周访视时,门诊视觉治疗/视光学矫正组有42%、门诊安慰剂视觉治疗/视光学矫正组有31%、家庭式铅笔操训练组有20%的患者症状评分<21(我们预先设定的症状消除标准)。
在本研究中,视觉治疗/视光学矫正是唯一在近距集合近点和近距正融像性聚散方面产生临床显著改善的治疗方法。然而,该组超过一半(58%)的患者在治疗结束时仍有症状,尽管他们的症状明显减轻。所有三个组的症状均有统计学意义上的变化,门诊视觉治疗/视光学矫正组有42%、门诊安慰剂视觉治疗/视光学矫正组有31%、家庭式铅笔操训练组有20%的患者达到我们的症状消除标准。