Search

Occlusion used to treat amblyopia towards the end of the developmental component of the critical period gives a risk of inducing intractable diplopia. In the United Kingdom, the density of suppression is assessed via the Sbisa/Bagolini filter bar, but there is very little research evidence to guide clinical practice or interpretation of the tests used. The aims of this study were to determine current practice and estimate the incidence of intractable diplopia following amblyopia treatment.Current practice and incidence of intractable diplopia following amblyopia were determined via a questionnaire distributed to head orthoptists in every eye department in the United Kingdom. The questionnaire explored testing and test conditions, interpretation of the test results, and cases of intractable diplopia over the last 5 years.There was considerable variation in clinical practice of the measurement of the density of suppression and interpretation of the results to guide the treatment of amblyopia. The minimum age of patients taking the test ranged from 2 to 8 years and the minimum filter considered still safe to continue treatment ranged from 4 to 17. It is estimated there were 24 cases of intractable diplopia over the last 5 years.The issue of intractable diplopia and amblyopia treatment is likely to become increasingly important as there appears to be greater plasticity and scope to treat amblyopia in teenagers and adults than was previously thought. Lack of knowledge of how to evaluate the risk may lead to more cases of intractable diplopia or alternatively treatment being withheld unnecessarily.

Establish whether the Sbisa bar, Bagolini filter (BF) bar, and neutral density filter (NDF) bar, used to measure density of suppression, are equivalent and possess test-retest reliability. Determine whether density of suppression is altered when measurement equipment/testing conditions are changed.Our pilot study had 10 subjects aged ≥18 years with childhood-onset strabismus, no ocular pathologies, and no binocular vision when manifest. Density of suppression upon repeated testing, with clinic lights on/off, and using a full/reduced intensity light source, was investigated. Results were analysed for test-retest reliability, equivalence, and changes with alteration of testing conditions.Test-retest reliability issues were present for the BF bar (median 6 filter change from first to final test, p = 0.021) and NDF bar (median 5 filter change from first to final test, p = 0.002). Density of suppression was unaffected by environmental illumination or fixation light intensity variations. Density of suppression measurements were higher when measured with the NDF bar (e.g. NDF bar = 1.5, medium suppression, vs BF bar = 6.5, light suppression).Test-retest reliability issues may be present for the two filter bars currently still under manufacture. Changes in testing conditions do not significantly affect test results, provided the same filter bar is used consistently for testing. Further studies in children with strabismus having active amblyopia treatment would be of benefit. Despite extensive use of these tests in the UK, this is to our knowledge the first study evaluating filter bar equivalence/reliability.