Children at risk of developing amblyopia: When to refer for an eye examination

Clinical Practice and the Attitude of Ophthalmologists Regarding Amblyopia in the Population of Jordan: A Cross-Sectional Study

Aim The study was aimed at finding out the knowledge and attitude among ophthalmologists regarding amblyopia in the population of Jordan. Methodology This was an observational cross-sectional study conducted in 2021 among ophthalmologists who live and work in the local society of Jordan and were aged between 30 and 50 years. The survey was conducted using an online questionnaire administered through email and various social media platforms. The level of knowledge and awareness of amblyopia, its causes, methods of treatment, and the best age for treating amblyopia was assessed. Results Out of 200 participants, the majority were in the age group of 30-34 years (47.5%). The male:female ratio was 1:1. The average better age for examination and treatment of amblyopia was three to five years (46%). The most common cause of amblyopia was strabismic amblyopia (50%). Children's and parents' cooperation most significantly influenced the treatment's success (49%). The preferred assessment was cycloplegic refraction (56%), and the preferred patching treatment was a direct cover placed over the eye (77%). The average time to treat amblyopia was less than three years in the majority (53.5%). The most critical factor determining the success of treatment was when the treatment began (57.5%). Conclusions Our study found that although the majority of the participants were less experienced overall, they had a good knowledge of the amblyopia age group and the method of examination. Still, there was a mixed response regarding the treatment. Hence there is a need to increase awareness regarding amblyopia by Jordanian ophthalmologists, social organizations, and educational institutes.

New pediatric risk factors for amblyopia: strabismic versus refractive

PURPOSE

To assess the role of risk factors for amblyopia, such as family history and neonatal background, for the prediction of either strabismic amblyopia or refractive amblyopia.

METHODS

In this retrospective case-control model, the study population included all children born at the Hospital de Braga during 1997-2012 (3 to 18 years old) with ophthalmologic consultation in 2014. Data collection was performed from the clinical database and through telephone questionnaire surveys.

RESULTS

A total of 298 (50%) controls and 298 (50%) cases (120 [40.3%] strabismic amblyopia and 178 [59.7%] refractive amblyopia) were analyzed. A significantly lower birthweight was detected in patients with strabismic amblyopia (mean 2,961 g [95% confidence interval (CI) 2,827-3,096]) compared to controls (mean 3,198 g [95% CI 3,125-3,271]) (p = 0.002). Five-minute Apgar was significantly lower in patients with strabismic amblyopia (mean 9.57 [95% CI 9.37-9.77]) than in controls (mean 9.83 [95% CI 9.77-9.90]) (p = 0.004) or patients with refractive amblyopia (mean 9.79 [95% CI 9.69-9.89]) (p = 0.031). Family history of either amblyopia or strabismus was associated with amblyopia (χ² [2, n = 562] = 12.66; p = 0.002; Cramer V = 0.150; χ² [2, n = 561] = 11.0; p = 0.004; Cramer V = 0.140), but was significantly more associated with strabismic amblyopia (p = 0.0023 and p = 0.0032) than with refractive amblyopia (p = 0.48 and p = 0.015, respectively). Multinomial logistic regression model explained 50.8% of the variance in amblyopia development. Low 5-minute Apgar had a relevant odds ratio (OR) for either strabismic amblyopia (OR 3.44; p = 0.066) or refractive amblyopia (OR 3.30; p = 0.077).

CONCLUSIONS

This division in amblyopia subtypes gives a new perspective of the risk factors for amblyopia, with family history and some obstetrician/neonatal outcomes appearing to be more relevant in strabismic amblyopia. Educating health care providers to recognize these risk factors can result in an early ophthalmologic referral.