Accommodative and tonic convergence and anatomical contracture in partially accommodative and non-accommodative esotropia
Article first published online: 18 JUL 2012
Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics © 2012 The College of Optometrists
Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics
Volume 32, Issue 6, pages 535–538, November 2012
How to Cite
Lee, T.-E. and Kim, S.-H. (2012), Accommodative and tonic convergence and anatomical contracture in partially accommodative and non-accommodative esotropia. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 32: 535–538. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2012.00924.x
- Issue published online: 11 OCT 2012
- Article first published online: 18 JUL 2012
- Received: 24 January 2012; Accepted: 10 May 2012
- anatomical contracture;
- strabismus surgery;
- tonic convergence
Citation information: Lee TE & Kim SH. Accommodative and tonic convergence and anatomical contracture in partially accommodative and non-accommodative esotropia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2012, 32, 535–538. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2012.00924.x
Purpose: To compare accommodative convergence, tonic convergence, and anatomical contracture quantitatively in partially accommodative esotropia vs non-accommodative esotropia.
Methods: Patients with an esotropia who had undergone surgery under general anaesthesia were evaluated. They were divided into two groups: 17 patients had partially accommodative esotropia and 15 patients had non-accommodative esotropia (basic esotropia). We supposed that the total esodeviation (Eso) was composed of three components: accommodative convergence (AC), tonic convergence (TC), and anatomical contracture (AnC). We measured the preoperative angle of esodeviation with (AC) or without glasses (Eso) in awakening state at 1/3 m and the preoperative esodeviation under general anaesthesia (AnC). TC was calculated by the formula TC = EsoD−AC−AnC.
Results: The average ratios of TC/Eso, AC/Eso and AnC/Eso were 46%, 32%, and 22%, respectively in the partially accommodative esotrope group, and 28%, 1%, and 71%, respectively in the non-accommodative esotropes. These differences were significant for AC/Eso and AnC/Eso (p < 0.0001) but not for TC/Eso (p = 0.15).
Conclusions: Among the three components, tonic convergence was responsible for a larger portion of esodeviation than anatomical contracture in partially accommodative esotropia, whereas anatomical contracture played a greater role in the non-accommodative esotropia group.