This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.  Read our Cookies Policy.
Close
Eye News
  • Features
    • Close
    • Features
    • Allied Professions
    • Humanitarian
    • Interviews
    • AI & Oculomics
    • Ophthalmology
    • Optometry
    • Podcast videos
    • Supplements
  • Education
    • Close
    • Education
    • Learning Curve
    • Quiz
    • Top Tips
    • Trainees
    • Medico-Legal
    • The Truth Behind The Headlines
    • Case Reports
    • Pete's Bogus Journey
  • Reviews
    • Close
    • Reviews
    • Book Reviews
    • Journal Reviews
    • What's trending?
    • Tech Reviews
    • My Top Five
    • The Culture Section
  • Events
  • News
  • Product Guide
  • Industry News
  • Contact us
    • Close
    • Contact us
    • Write for Eye News
  • Home
  • Reviews
  • Journal Reviews
  • Prism adaptation vs. augmented surgery for esotropia

Prism adaptation vs. augmented surgery for esotropia
Reviewed by Fiona Rowe

7 April 2021 | Fiona Rowe (Prof) | EYE - Paediatrics, EYE - Strabismus
Share This

Prism adaptation and the augmented surgery formula are different tools of surgical augmentation. The purpose of this study was to compare these two methods in the management of acquired concomitant esotropia. This was a prospective study of 40 patients with 20 in each group. In the prism group there were six responders with prism build up. There were 14 non-responders including 10 non-responders with further prism build up and four with no prism build up. The mean esotropia angle was 29 ±6.2PD preop and 37.2 ±9.66PD postop with a mean angle build up of 8.2 ±10.14PD. Mean surgery target angle in augmented surgery was 52.88 ±13.3PD. This was higher than the angle of 39.62 ±8.47PD in the prism group. At three-month follow-up, motor success rates were significantly higher in the prism group than the augmented surgery group (90% success overall vs. 55%), although the sensory success rate was not significantly better. In the prism responder versus non-responder patients, sensory success rate was significant. However, when glasses were adapted for the accommodative element, there was no significant difference in groups for success rate. The authors conclude, for non-accommodative esotropia, all patients with prism adaptation, whether responders or not, should have surgery based on the prism-adapted angle. 

A comparative study of prism adaptation and the augmented surgery formula in the management of acquired comitant esotropia.
Kassem RR, Elhilali HM, El-Sada MA, El-Antably SA.
JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC OPHTHALMOLOGY AND STRABISMUS
2020;57:108-19.
Share This
Fiona Rowe (Prof)
CONTRIBUTOR
Fiona Rowe (Prof)

Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, UK.

View Full Profile
Specialty
  • EYE - Cataract
  • EYE - Cornea
  • EYE - General
  • EYE - Glaucoma
  • EYE - Neuro-ophthalmology
  • EYE - Oculoplastic
  • EYE - Oncology
  • EYE - Orbit
  • EYE - Paediatrics
  • EYE - Pathology
  • EYE - Refractive
  • EYE - Strabismus
  • EYE - Vitreo-Retinal
Archive
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013

Top Of Page

9 Gayfield Square, 
Edinburgh EH1 3NT, UK.

Call: +44 (0)131 557 4184
www.pinpoint-scotland.com

WEBSITE DETAILS
  • Cookie Policy
  • Data Protection Notice
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
ABOUT US
  • Who we are
  • Register
  • Contact us
  • Contributors
  • Company Awards
DIGITAL ISSUES/GUIDELINES
  • Digital issues - Library
  • Supplements - Library
  • Guidelines
Accreditations
IPSO_FLAG_TEAL 2025.png cpdcertified.png

Pinpoint Scotland Ltd (Registered in Scotland No. SC068684) | © 2025 - Website by Gecko Agency