Evaluation of the effectiveness of Cambridge Visual Stimulator treatment in amblyopia patients: a retrospective study
Strabismus, cilt.34, sa.2, ss.184-191, 2026 (ESCI, Scopus)
- Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
- Cilt numarası: 34 Sayı: 2
- Basım Tarihi: 2026
- Doi Numarası: 10.1080/09273972.2025.2579178
- Dergi Adı: Strabismus
- Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), Scopus, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Academic Search Ultimate (EBSCO), Biomedical Reference Collection: Corporate Edition (EBSCO)
- Sayfa Sayıları: ss.184-191
- Anahtar Kelimeler: Amblyopia, Cambridge Visual Stimulator, occlusion treatment, strabismus
- Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet
Özet
Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term efficacy of the Cambridge Visual Stimulator (CAM) in pediatric amblyopia, by comparing outcomes of standard occlusion therapy alone versus occlusion combined with CAM. Methods: In this retrospective cohort, 112 patients (112 eyes) aged ≤10 years with strabismic or anisometropic amblyopia were assigned to one of two groups. Group 1 (n = 64) received three hours/day of occlusion therapy; Group 2 (n = 48) received the same occlusion regimen plus a supervised 5-day CAM course (six rotating high-contrast spatial-frequency disks, 18 minutes daily). Best-corrected visual acuity was recorded in logMAR at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. Within-group improvements were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and between-group differences with the Mann–Whitney U test. P-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Both groups showed significant acuity gains at 6 and 12 months versus baseline (p <.001 for all comparisons). Numerically, Group 2 improved more (6 months: −0.137 ± 0.231 vs. −0.127 ± 0.196; 12 months: −0.192 ± 0.267 vs. −0.190 ± 0.225), but these differences did not reach significance (6 months p =.402; 12 months p =.883). Conclusion: Occlusion therapy markedly enhances visual acuity in amblyopic children, whereas adjunctive CAM yields only limited additional benefit. Prospective, larger-scale trials are needed to determine whether specific subgroups–such as treatment-resistant cases–may derive clinically meaningful gains from CAM.