School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Department of Optical Techniques, Al-Mustaqbal University College, Hillah, Iraq.
Strabismus. 2024 Sep;32(3):123-138. doi: 10.1080/09273972.2024.2353153. Epub 2024 Jul 30.
There are limited studies on the effectiveness of Cambridge vision stimulator (CAM) therapy as a management strategy in amblyopic patients. In addition, all these studies have a low sample size. The main purpose of this study was to compare the effect of CAM therapy with passive occlusion therapy in the management of unilateral amblyopia.
In this randomized clinical trial study, 110 cooperative amblyopic children, who had not been managed previously, were randomly divided into two groups of CAM therapy ( = 55) and passive occlusion therapy ( = 55). In the CAM procedure, five discs with different spatial frequencies (SF) (2, 6, 15, 20, 30 cycles/degree) were presented to the patient (30 minutes a day, twice a week). Plates with SF equal to the two lines better than the measured corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) were chosen. During the training, the non-amblyopic eye was occluded. The standard occlusion therapy protocols were performed in the occlusion therapy group. The CDVA for all patients was measured at baseline and then at one, two, and three months after the treatment.
The mean age of patients in CAM and occlusion therapy groups was 7.0 ± 2.1 and 6.9 ± 1.9 years, respectively ( = .721). There was no significant difference in the mean CDVA between CAM and occlusion therapy groups after one (0.30 ± 0.16 vs. 0.25 ± 0.14, = .079), two (0.15 ± 0.10 vs. 0.15 ± 0.11, = .732) and three months (0.05 ± 0.08 and 0.05 ± 0.06, = .919) from baseline. However, the mean amount of CDVA increased significantly in each follow-up in both groups (all < .001). Regarding the amblyopia type and severity, the mean improvement of CDVA from baseline in the anisometropic patients and in moderate amblyopia was significantly higher in the CAM group than the occlusion group after two and three months ( < .05).
CAM and conventional occlusion therapies significantly improved CDVA in children with amblyopia, and the difference was not significant; therefore, they could be used as alternatives. CAM therapy requires cost and time for the amblyopic patient and parents. Thus, it can be considered as a second treatment option in amblyopic patients, especially anisometropic type and moderate amblyopia, with poor compliance to patching.
剑桥视觉刺激器（CAM）疗法作为弱视患者管理策略的有效性研究有限。此外，所有这些研究的样本量都很小。本研究的主要目的是比较 CAM 疗法与被动遮盖疗法在单侧弱视管理中的效果。
在这项随机临床试验研究中，将 110 名未接受过治疗的合作性弱视儿童随机分为 CAM 治疗组（ = 55）和被动遮盖治疗组（ = 55）。在 CAM 程序中，向患者呈现五个具有不同空间频率（SF）的圆盘（每天 30 分钟，每周两次）。选择 SF 等于比测量的矫正远视力（CDVA）好两条线的盘子。在训练过程中，非弱视眼被遮盖。在遮盖治疗组中进行标准遮盖治疗方案。所有患者在基线时以及治疗后 1、2 和 3 个月时测量 CDVA。
CAM 和遮盖治疗组患者的平均年龄分别为 7.0 ± 2.1 岁和 6.9 ± 1.9 岁（ = .721）。在治疗后 1 个月（0.30 ± 0.16 与 0.25 ± 0.14， = .079）、2 个月（0.15 ± 0.10 与 0.15 ± 0.11， = .732）和 3 个月（0.05 ± 0.08 与 0.05 ± 0.06， = .919）时，CAM 和遮盖治疗组之间的平均 CDVA 没有显著差异。然而，在两组中，每个随访的 CDVA 平均值都显著增加（均< .001）。关于弱视类型和严重程度，在治疗后 2 个月和 3 个月，CAM 组患者的 CDVA 从基线的平均改善值高于遮盖组的屈光不正患者和中度弱视患者（ < .05）。
CAM 和传统遮盖疗法均能显著提高弱视儿童的 CDVA，差异无统计学意义；因此，它们可以作为替代方法。CAM 疗法需要弱视患者及其家长付出时间和金钱。因此，对于依从性差的屈光不正型和中度弱视患者，它可以被视为一种替代治疗选择。
