Glyxambi
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 1917
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
   Table of Contents      
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 63  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 468-469

Hypermetropia, accommodative and decompensated/partially accommodative esotropia and esotropic Duane's retraction syndrome in infants: Words impact understanding


Department of Ophthalmology, Guru Nanak Eye Centre and Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, India

Date of Web Publication2-Jul-2015

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Pramod Kumar Pandey
Room 201, Guru Nanak Eye Centre, Ranjit Singh Marg, New Delhi - 110 002
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0301-4738.159908

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Pandey PK, Bhambhwani V, Sood S, Rana K, Gupta P, Ranjith P C. Hypermetropia, accommodative and decompensated/partially accommodative esotropia and esotropic Duane's retraction syndrome in infants: Words impact understanding. Indian J Ophthalmol 2015;63:468-9

How to cite this URL:
Pandey PK, Bhambhwani V, Sood S, Rana K, Gupta P, Ranjith P C. Hypermetropia, accommodative and decompensated/partially accommodative esotropia and esotropic Duane's retraction syndrome in infants: Words impact understanding. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2015 [cited 2019 Jun 16];63:468-9. Available from: http://www.ijo.in/text.asp?2015/63/5/468/159908

Dear Editor,

We read with interest the article by Kekunnaya et al. [1] and would like to make certain observations.

The purpose, to study partially accommodative esotropia (ET) in esotropic Duane's retraction syndrome (DRS), is skewed to say the least. Partially accommodative ET is that part which is left after full correction of the accommodative component, implying that partially accommodative component and eso DRS could be the same. Authors have not clarified as to how they have segregated the two, thereby congealing the entire study and attendant inferences.

Terms hypermetropia and accommodative ET are not synonymous, certain criteria have to be met for the latter. By preoperative data, only cases 1, 3 and 6 fall in accommodative category, only case 1 had vertical rectus transposition (VRT), other two did not. Both cases (2 and 4) that ended up with exotropia (XT) lacked a proven accommodative component, so also case 5 with VRT. Accordingly, it is misleading to use the term partially accommodative ET in such cases as the deviation was ostensibly due to eso DRS.

We don't know how many were refractive/nonrefractive accommodative, high/low AC/A ratio, how many went in for deteriorated/decompensated accommodative ET, were decompensated monofixational esotropes, developed intermittent XT with accommodative component or simply passed from eso DRS to exo DRS due to long variable follow-up. [1],[2] Hypermetropia does not increase with the passage of time, it may only decrease due to the process of emmetropization. It is not clear why, at last follow-up, accommodative component worsened de novo after VRT surgery in cases 3 and 5. Refraction at last follow-up and change vis-a-vis preoperative values is not known to draw any logical conclusions regarding induced (non) refractive accommodative component.

Most patients are 1-year old, one being just 6 months; ocular deviation, motility cannot be assessed reliably, including the effect of glasses on the deviation. Most patients with DRS achieve alignment and fusion with abnormal head posture (AHP) and develop good binocularity. Moderate AHP in a 1-year old with fusion does not call for surgical intervention, larger AHP in an older child with symptoms like neck pain/cosmetic blemish may earn it. Operating on DRS without clear indications is not in order as a lot of negative planning is involved.

Full muscle VRT with Foster augmentation as an alternative to lateral rectus/medial rectus recessions for eso DRS in 1-year olds may raise ethical issues. VRT may only add to globe retraction [3] (which was core criterion to diagnose DRS in this study), induce a vertical deviation (case 2), and limit adduction. The study does not address these issues, neither documents improvement in abduction if any.

There is absolutely no controversy that correction of refractive errors is a prerequisite before other surgical/nonsurgical measures are contemplated in treatment of strabismus, neither that ortho DRS may adopt AHP if deviation is induced by other concurrent factors. However, reasons for AHP in DRS are legion. XT after years could be due to diverse factors as stated above, words hypermetropia and accommodative ET have been used interchangeably, partially accommodative ET and ET due to DRS have not been pigeonholed, accordingly inferences drawn lack legitimacy.

 
  References Top

1.
Kekunnaya R, Velez FG, Pineles SL. Outcomes in patients with esotropic Duane retraction syndrome and a partially accommodative component. Indian J Ophthalmol 2013;61:701-4.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
2.
Raab EL. Outcome of deteriorated accommodative esotropia. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 1989;87:185-93.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Rosenbaum AL. Costenbader lecture. The efficacy of rectus muscle transposition surgery in esotropic Duane syndrome and VI nerve palsy. J AAPOS 2004;8:409-19.  Back to cited text no. 3
    




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1056    
    Printed12    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded138    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal