Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: There are limited studies on the effectiveness of Cambridge vision stimulator (CAM) therapy as a management strategy in amblyopic patients. In addition, all these studies have a low sample size. The main purpose of this study was to compare the effect of CAM therapy with passive occlusion therapy in the management of unilateral amblyopia.
UNASSIGNED: In this randomized clinical trial study, 110 cooperative amblyopic children, who had not been managed previously, were randomly divided into two groups of CAM therapy (n = 55) and passive occlusion therapy (n = 55). In the CAM procedure, five discs with different spatial frequencies (SF) (2, 6, 15, 20, 30 cycles/degree) were presented to the patient (30 minutes a day, twice a week). Plates with SF equal to the two lines better than the measured corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) were chosen. During the training, the non-amblyopic eye was occluded. The standard occlusion therapy protocols were performed in the occlusion therapy group. The CDVA for all patients was measured at baseline and then at one, two, and three months after the treatment.
UNASSIGNED: The mean age of patients in CAM and occlusion therapy groups was 7.0 ± 2.1 and 6.9 ± 1.9 years, respectively (p = .721). There was no significant difference in the mean CDVA between CAM and occlusion therapy groups after one (0.30 ± 0.16 vs. 0.25 ± 0.14, p = .079), two (0.15 ± 0.10 vs. 0.15 ± 0.11, p = .732) and three months (0.05 ± 0.08 and 0.05 ± 0.06, p = .919) from baseline. However, the mean amount of CDVA increased significantly in each follow-up in both groups (all p < .001). Regarding the amblyopia type and severity, the mean improvement of CDVA from baseline in the anisometropic patients and in moderate amblyopia was significantly higher in the CAM group than the occlusion group after two and three months (p < .05).
UNASSIGNED: CAM and conventional occlusion therapies significantly improved CDVA in children with amblyopia, and the difference was not significant; therefore, they could be used as alternatives. CAM therapy requires cost and time for the amblyopic patient and parents. Thus, it can be considered as a second treatment option in amblyopic patients, especially anisometropic type and moderate amblyopia, with poor compliance to patching.
UNASSIGNED: In this randomized clinical trial study, 110 cooperative amblyopic children, who had not been managed previously, were randomly divided into two groups of CAM therapy (n = 55) and passive occlusion therapy (n = 55). In the CAM procedure, five discs with different spatial frequencies (SF) (2, 6, 15, 20, 30 cycles/degree) were presented to the patient (30 minutes a day, twice a week). Plates with SF equal to the two lines better than the measured corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) were chosen. During the training, the non-amblyopic eye was occluded. The standard occlusion therapy protocols were performed in the occlusion therapy group. The CDVA for all patients was measured at baseline and then at one, two, and three months after the treatment.
UNASSIGNED: The mean age of patients in CAM and occlusion therapy groups was 7.0 ± 2.1 and 6.9 ± 1.9 years, respectively (p = .721). There was no significant difference in the mean CDVA between CAM and occlusion therapy groups after one (0.30 ± 0.16 vs. 0.25 ± 0.14, p = .079), two (0.15 ± 0.10 vs. 0.15 ± 0.11, p = .732) and three months (0.05 ± 0.08 and 0.05 ± 0.06, p = .919) from baseline. However, the mean amount of CDVA increased significantly in each follow-up in both groups (all p < .001). Regarding the amblyopia type and severity, the mean improvement of CDVA from baseline in the anisometropic patients and in moderate amblyopia was significantly higher in the CAM group than the occlusion group after two and three months (p < .05).
UNASSIGNED: CAM and conventional occlusion therapies significantly improved CDVA in children with amblyopia, and the difference was not significant; therefore, they could be used as alternatives. CAM therapy requires cost and time for the amblyopic patient and parents. Thus, it can be considered as a second treatment option in amblyopic patients, especially anisometropic type and moderate amblyopia, with poor compliance to patching.
摘要：
■关于剑桥视觉刺激器（CAM）疗法作为弱视患者管理策略的有效性的研究有限。此外,所有这些研究的样本量都很低。这项研究的主要目的是比较CAM治疗与被动闭塞治疗在单侧弱视治疗中的效果。
■在这项随机临床试验研究中，110名合作弱视儿童，以前没有被管理过的人，随机分为CAM治疗组(n=55)和被动闭塞治疗组(n=55)。在CAM过程中，5个具有不同空间频率（SF）（2、6、15、20、30个周期/度）的椎间盘被呈现给患者（每天30分钟，一周两次)。选择SF等于两条线的板，其优于测得的校正距离视敏度（CDVA）。在训练期间,非弱视眼被遮挡。在闭塞治疗组中执行标准闭塞治疗方案。在基线时测量所有患者的CDVA，然后在1,两个,治疗后三个月。
■CAM和闭塞治疗组患者的平均年龄为7.0±2.1和6.9±1.9岁，分别（p=.721）。术后CAM和闭塞治疗组之间的平均CDVA没有显着差异（0.30±0.16vs.0.25±0.14，p=.079），两个(0.15±0.10vs.0.15±0.11，p=.732）和距基线3个月（0.05±0.08和0.05±0.06，p=.919）。然而,两组在每次随访中CDVA的平均量均显著增加(均p<.001).关于弱视类型和严重程度，在2个月和3个月后,屈光参差患者和中度弱视患者中,CAM组的CDVA相对于基线的平均改善显著高于闭塞组(p<.05).
■CAM和常规闭塞疗法可显著改善弱视儿童的CDVA，差异不显著；因此，它们可以用作替代品。CAM治疗需要弱视患者和父母的成本和时间。因此，它可以被认为是弱视患者的第二种治疗选择，尤其是屈光参差型和中度弱视，对修补的依从性差。
■在这项随机临床试验研究中，110名合作弱视儿童，以前没有被管理过的人，随机分为CAM治疗组(n=55)和被动闭塞治疗组(n=55)。在CAM过程中，5个具有不同空间频率（SF）（2、6、15、20、30个周期/度）的椎间盘被呈现给患者（每天30分钟，一周两次)。选择SF等于两条线的板，其优于测得的校正距离视敏度（CDVA）。在训练期间,非弱视眼被遮挡。在闭塞治疗组中执行标准闭塞治疗方案。在基线时测量所有患者的CDVA，然后在1,两个,治疗后三个月。
■CAM和闭塞治疗组患者的平均年龄为7.0±2.1和6.9±1.9岁，分别（p=.721）。术后CAM和闭塞治疗组之间的平均CDVA没有显着差异（0.30±0.16vs.0.25±0.14，p=.079），两个(0.15±0.10vs.0.15±0.11，p=.732）和距基线3个月（0.05±0.08和0.05±0.06，p=.919）。然而,两组在每次随访中CDVA的平均量均显著增加(均p<.001).关于弱视类型和严重程度，在2个月和3个月后,屈光参差患者和中度弱视患者中,CAM组的CDVA相对于基线的平均改善显著高于闭塞组(p<.05).
■CAM和常规闭塞疗法可显著改善弱视儿童的CDVA，差异不显著；因此，它们可以用作替代品。CAM治疗需要弱视患者和父母的成本和时间。因此，它可以被认为是弱视患者的第二种治疗选择，尤其是屈光参差型和中度弱视，对修补的依从性差。
