A comparison of therapies using Eyetronix Flicker Glass And standard adhesive patches in children with anisometropic amblyopia: A randomized controlled trial

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveEyetronix Flicker Glass (EFG) has been introduced an alternative treatment for amblyopia. It is based on the premise that amblyopia can better be treated by manipulating the visual input that enter both the normal and amblyopic eye. In contrast, only the normal eye gets deprived during the traditional patching therapy. We conducted a randomized clinical trial to compare the efficacy of the therapies using the Eyetronix Flicker Glass and standard adhesive patches in children with anisometropic amblyopia.DesignA prospective, randomized controlled trial Participants: 31 children aged 4-13 years with anisometropic amblyopia Intervention: The patients were assigned two treatment groups and were treated for 12 weeks. Those in the first group were treated with the Eyetronix Flicker Glass for one hour per day, whereas those in the latter group were treated with the standard patches for two hours per day.Main outcome measuresBest-corrected visual acuity and contrast sensitivity of the amblyopic eye, stereopsis and fusion range were measured at both before the treatment and 3, 6 and 12 weeks after the first day of the treatment.ResultsVisual acuity of the amblyopic eye significantly improved in both groups after the treatment (p < 0.05), albeit more so in patients who had undergone the standard patching therapy. A significant improvement in contrast sensitivity of the amblyopic eye at 3, 6 and 12 cpd was also observed in patients who had undergone the standard patching therapy (p < 0.05) but not the EFG therapy (p > 0.05). However, no improvement in stereopsis and fusion range was found in patients from both treatment groups.ConclusionBoth therapies improved monocular visual functions, such as visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. However, the improvement was significantly larger after the standard patching therapy than that of the EFG therapy. However, both therapies did not improve fusion range and stereopsis. Our results indicate that although the EFG therapy deprives visual input in a binocular fashion, it does not improve binocular functions in the amblyopic population.