 |
 |


Atropine vs Patching for the Treatment of Moderate Amblyopia in Children
Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:387-388.
 |
 |
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
 |
 |
IN A CLASSIC Peanuts cartoon, Lucy declares
triumphantly that "with nothing more than a simple eye patch, we have brought
amblyopia to its knees." Elegant in its simplicity, occlusion of the sound
eye has remained an effective and standard treatment of amblyopia since it
was initially described in the middle of the 18th century.1
Despite this, amblyopia still is one of the leading causes of monocular blindness
in people between the ages of 20 and 70 years.1
More recently, atropine sulfate to blur the sound eye, a treatment referred
to as "pharmacologic penalization," has been advocated as an alternative to
traditional occlusion therapy.
Despite some reports of success and the theoretical benefits with penalization
therapy, 97% of surveyed pediatric ophthalmologists indicated that they use
traditional occlusion as their initial treatment choice for children with
amblyopia.2 In light of this statistic, it
may be wise for us to remember the musings . . . [Full Text of this Article] Corresponding author and reprints: Burton J. Kushner, MD, Department
of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, 2870 University
Ave, Suite 206, Madison, WI 53705 (e-mail: bkushner@facstaff.wisc.edu).
RELATED ARTICLES
A Randomized Trial of Atropine vs Patching for Treatment of Moderate Amblyopia in Children
The Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group
Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120(3):268-278.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Clinical Profile of Moderate Amblyopia in Children Younger Than 7 Years
The Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group
Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120(3):281-287.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
The John Pratt-Johnson Annual Lecture: Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group Amblyopia Treatment Review
Rees et al.
Amer. Orthoptic Jrnl. 2007;57:99-103.
ABSTRACT
|