- Catherine E Stewart, research fellow and clinical orthoptist,
- Clare M Wilson, research fellow and specialist registrar, ophthalmology,
- Alistair R Fielder, professor emeritus, ophthalmology
- 1Department of Optometry and Visual Science, City University, London EC1V 0HB
- Correspondence to: C E Stewart c.e.stewart{at}city.ac.uk
A 3½ year old white girl attended the paediatric eye clinic. Her mother had noticed she had been screwing her eyes up and blinking excessively. This occurred mainly when she was reading and towards the end of the day, and it had worsened over six months. The child was otherwise well, was taking no drugs, and had been born at full term by normal delivery at a weight of 3200 g. She had not had any previous eye treatment. Her mother and maternal grandfather had had strabismus from early childhood. Testing revealed a constant slight right convergent strabismus for near and distance fixation (near 12 prism dioptres; distance 8 prism dioptres). Unaided vision of the right and left eyes was 6/30 (0.7) and 6/7.5 (0.1). Depth perception was negative. Ophthalmoscopy was normal and cycloplegic refraction revealed bilateral moderate hypermetropia (long sightedness) with significant anisometropia (difference in refractive error between the two eyes; +5.00 dioptre spheres (DS) in the right eye and +3.50 (DS) in the left eye).
Questions
1. What is the diagnosis?
2. Which are the risk factors for strabismus?
3. What are the characteristic findings in this diagnosis?
4. How should this child be treated?
Answers
Short answers
1. Right constant convergent strabismus with anisometropic hypermetropia. Anisometropic and strabismic (mixed) amblyopia.
2. A family history of strabismus; premature birth; low birth weight at full term; low socioeconomic status; visual deprivation (for example, cataract); and refractive error—particularly long sightedness and a difference in refractive error between the two eyes.
3. Constant unilateral strabismus; refractive error (>1 DS or >1.5 dioptre cyl …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record

CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The decline in the breast cancer incidence is 1.2% and it is not significant.
Published 10 February 2012
'twas ever thus
Published 10 February 2012
The value of historic human remains
Published 10 February 2012
In Praise of British Literature
Published 10 February 2012
Is real shared decision making possible?
Published 10 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (7 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012