Christine Powell

The improving outcomes in intermittent exotropia study: outcomes at 2 years after diagnosis in an observational cohort

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to investigate current patterns of management and outcomes of intermittent distance exotropia [X(T)] in the UK.MethodsThis was an observational cohort study which recruited 460 children aged < 12 years with previously untreated X(T). Eligible subjects were enrolled from 26 UK hospital ophthalmology clinics between May 2005 and December 2006. Over a 2-year period of follow-up, clinical data were prospectively recorded at standard intervals from enrolment. Data collected included angle, near stereoacuity, visual acuity, control of X(T) measured with the Newcastle Control Score (NCS), and treatment. The main outcome measures were change in clinical outcomes (angle, stereoacuity, visual acuity and NCS) in treated and untreated X(T), 2 years from enrolment (or, where applicable, 6 months after surgery). Change over time was tested using the chi-square test for categorical, Wilcoxon test for non-parametric and paired-samples t-test for parametric data.ResultsAt follow-up, data were available for 371 children (81% of the original cohort). Of these: 53% (195) had no treatment; 17% (63) had treatment for reduced visual acuity only (pure refractive error and amblyopia); 13% (50) had non surgical treatment for control (spectacle lenses, occlusion, prisms, exercises) and 17% (63) had surgery. Only 0.5% (2/371) children developed constant exotropia. The surgically treated group was the only group with clinically significant improvements in angle or NCS. However, 8% (5) of those treated surgically required second procedures for overcorrection within 6 months of the initial procedure and at 6-month follow-up 21% (13) were overcorrected.ConclusionsMany children in the UK with X(T) receive active monitoring only. Deterioration to constant exotropia, with or without treatment, is rare. Surgery appears effective in improving angle of X(T) and NCS, but rates of overcorrection are high.

Grading the severity of intermittent distance exotropia: the revised Newcastle Control Score

The Newcastle Control Score (NCS) has been shown to be a reliable, clinically sensitive method for grading the severity of childhood intermittent exotropia (X(T)).1 It incorporates subjective (home control) and objective (clinic control at near and in the distance) criteria, and uses modified descriptions of control as outlined by Rosenbaum and Santiago.2 The home control section asks the parent/guardian …

Surgical intervention in childhood intermittent exotropia: current practice and clinical outcomes from an observational cohort study

Purpose To describe surgical outcomes in intermittent exotropia (X(T)), and to relate these to preoperative and surgical characteristics. Methods 87 children (aged <11 years) underwent surgery in 18 UK centres; review data (mean 21 months post-surgery) were available for 72. The primary outcome measure was motor/sensory outcome (angle and stereoacuity). The secondary outcome measure was satisfactory control assessed by Newcastle Control Score (NCS). Results 35% of patients had excellent, 28% had fair and 37% had poor primary outcome. Preoperative and surgical characteristics did not influence primary outcome. Satisfactory control was achieved in 65% of patients, while X(T) remained/recurred in 20%. Persistent over-correction occurred in 15% of children. There was no relationship between over-correction and preoperative characteristics or surgical dose/type. Median angle improved by 12 prism dioptres (PD) at near and 19 PD at distance (p<0.001). Median NCS improved by 5 (p<0.001). 40% of those initially over-corrected remained so by last postoperative assessment; no relationship was found between an initial over-correction and good outcome. Conclusions Whilst excellent motor/sensory outcome was achieved in one-third and satisfactory control in two-thirds of patients, the 37% poor outcome and 15% persistent over-correction rate is of concern. Surgical dose was similar in those under- and over-corrected, suggesting that over-corrections cannot be avoided merely by getting the dosage right: a randomised controlled trial (RCT) would shed light on this issue. Initial over-correction did not improve the chance of a good outcome, supporting the growing literature on this topic and further highlighting the need for randomised controlled trials of X(T) surgery.

Presenting Features and Early Management of Childhood Intermittent Exotropia in the UK: Inception Cohort Study.

Aim: To investigate factors associated with early management of intermittent exotropia (X(T)) in hospital eye departments in the UK in a prospective cohort study. Methods: An inception cohort of 460 children aged <12 years with previously untreated X(T) (mean age 3.6 years, 55.9% girls) was recruited from 26 UK hospital children’s eye clinics and orthoptic departments. Participants received a standard ophthalmic examination at recruitment and orthoptic assessment at three-monthly intervals thereafter. The influence of severity of exotropia (control measured by Newcastle Control Score (NCS), and angle of strabismus, visual acuity and stereoacuity) and age on the type of management was investigated. Results: Within the first 12 months following recruitment, 297 (64.6%) children received no treatment, either for impaired visual acuity or for strabismus. Ninety-six (21%) children had treatment for impaired visual acuity. Eighty-nine (19.4%) received treatment for strabismus (22 of whom also received treatment for defective visual acuity); in 54 (11.7%) treatment was non-surgical and in 35 (7.6%) eye muscle surgery was performed. Children with poor (score 7–9) control of strabismus at recruitment were more likely to have surgery than children with good (score 1–3) control (p<0.001). Children who had no treatment were younger (mean age 3.38 years) than those who were treated (mean 4.07 years) (p<0.001). Stereoacuity and size of the angle of strabismus did not influence the type of management received. Conclusions: X(T) can be a presenting sign of reduced visual acuity. Most children with well controlled X(T) receive no treatment within 12 months following presentation.

Surgery versus Active Monitoring in Intermittent Exotropia (SamExo): study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial.

BackgroundChildhood intermittent exotropia [X(T)] is a type of strabismus (squint) in which one eye deviates outward at times, usually when the child is tired. It may progress to a permanent squint, loss of stereovision and/or amblyopia (reduced vision). Treatment options for X(T) include eye patches, glasses, surgery and active monitoring. There is no consensus regarding how this condition should be managed, and even when surgery is the preferred option clinicians disagree as to the optimal timing. Reports on the natural history of X(T) are limited, and there is no randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence on the effectiveness or efficiency of surgery compared with active monitoring. The SamExo (Surgery versus Active Monitoring in Intermittent Exotropia) pilot study has been designed to test the feasibility of such a trial in the UK.MethodsDesign: an external pilot patient randomised controlled trial.Setting: four UK secondary ophthalmology care facilities at Newcastle NHS Hospitals Foundation Trust, Sunderland Eye Infirmary, Moorfields Eye Hospital and York NHS Trust.Participants: children aged between 6 months and 16 years referred with suspected and subsequently diagnosed X(T). Recruitment target is a total of 144 children over a 9-month period, with 120 retained by 9-month outcome visit.Randomisation: permuted blocks stratified by collaborating centre, age and severity of X(T).Interventions: initial clinical assessment; randomisation (eye muscle surgery or active monitoring); 3-, 6- and 9-month (primary outcome) clinical assessments; participant/proxy completed questionnaire covering time and travel costs, health services use and quality of life (Intermittent Exotropia Questionnaire); qualitative interviews with parents to establish reasons for agreeing or declining participation in the pilot trial.Outcomes: recruitment and retention rates; nature and extent of participation bias; nature and extent of biases arising from crossover or loss to follow-up; reasons for agreeing/declining participation; variability of cure rates (to inform power calculations for a definitive RCT); completion rates of outcome measures.DiscussionThe SamExo pilot trial will provide important pointers regarding the feasibility of a full RCT of immediate surgery versus deferred surgery/active monitoring. The results of this pilot, including differences in cure rates, will inform the design of a definitive RCT.Trial registrationISRCTN44114892

An external pilot study to test the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial comparing eye muscle surgery against active monitoring for childhood intermittent exotropia [X(T)]

INTRODUCTION The evidence base for the treatment of strabismus (squint) is poor. Our main aim is to improve this evidence base for the treatment of a common type of childhood squint {intermittent exotropia, [X(T)]}. We conducted an external pilot study in order to inform the design and conduct of a future full randomised controlled trial (RCT). METHODS Children of between 6 months and 16 years with a recent diagnosis of X(T) were eligible for recruitment. Participants were recruited from secondary care at the ophthalmology departments at four UK NHS foundation trusts. Participants were randomised to either active monitoring or surgery. This report describes the findings of the Pilot Rehearsal Trial and Qualitative Study, and assesses the success against the objectives proposed. RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION The experience gained during the Pilot Rehearsal Trial demonstrates the ability to recruit and retain sites that are willing to randomise children to both trial arms, and for parents to agree to randomisation of their children to such a study. One child declined the group allocation. A total of 231 children were screened (expected 240), of whom 138 (60%) were eligible (expected 228: 95%) and 49 (35% of eligible) children were recruited (expected 144: 63% of eligible). Strategies that improved recruitment over the course of the trial are discussed, together with the reasons why fewer children were eligible for recruitment than initially anticipated. Attrition was low. Outcome data were obtained for 47 of 49 randomised children. TRIAL PROCESSES AND DATA COLLECTION The Trial Management processes proved effective. There were high levels of completion on all of the data collection forms. However, the feedback from the treatment orthoptists revealed that some modifications should be made to the length and frequency of the health service assessment and travel assessment questionnaires, thus reducing the burden on participants in the main trial. Modifications to the wording of the questions also need to be made. MONITORING OF BIAS Children who recruited to the trial were older and had more severe strabismus than those children eligible but declining participation. Strategies to account for this in a full trial are proposed. REASONS FOR PARTICIPATION OR DECLINING STUDY These were identified using qualitative interviews. The principal reasons for declining entry into the study were strong preferences for and against surgical treatment. HARMS There were no serious unexpected adverse events. Two children had overcorrection of their X(T) with reduction in binocular vision following surgery, which is in line with previous studies. No children in the active monitoring arm developed a constant strabismus although two showed some reduction in control. CONCLUSIONS The SamExo study has demonstrated that it is possible to recruit and retain participants to a randomised trial of surgery compared with active monitoring for X(T). For longer-term full RCTs, in order to maximise the generalisability of future studies, consideration needs to be given to planning more time and clinic appointments to assess eligibility and to allow consideration of participation; the greater use of research nurses for recruitment; and accommodating the strong preferences of some parents both for and against surgical intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN44114892. FUNDING This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Surrendering control, or nothing to lose: Parents’ preferences about participation in a randomised trial of childhood strabismus surgery

Background Intermittent exotropia is the most common form of divergent strabismus (squint) in children. Evidence regarding its optimum management is limited. A pilot randomised controlled trial has recently been completed (Surgery versus Active Monitoring in Intermittent Exotropia trial) to determine the feasibility of a full randomised controlled trial. Purpose To identify drivers for and barriers against parents’ participation in Surgery versus Active Monitoring in Intermittent Exotropia and to seek their views on information received, the need for randomisation, and enhancing acceptability. Methods Multiple method qualitative study using semi-structured telephone interviews to explore parents’ motivations and trial screening logs to provide an indication of common barriers. Exploratory thematic analysis identified key themes. Results A total of 48 interviews were conducted (14 participants; 34 non-participants). Barriers included no desire for surgery/preference to ‘wait and see’, wanting surgery immediately, feeling uncomfortable about ‘surrendering control’ over decision-making/being managed ‘at random’, lack of confidence in the effectiveness of surgery, believing the risks outweighed the benefits, and lack of trust. Drivers included desiring surgery, ‘nothing to lose’, benefits offsetting the risks, and being in a trial would result in better care. Some also mentioned ‘doing their bit’ for research. Suggestions for enhancing acceptability included allowing choice of treatment group, giving more time for decision-making, expanding on information given, and improving communication. Many felt the necessity of randomisation was adequately explained, but there was some indication that it was misunderstood. Information extracted from the screening logs of 80/89 eligible non-participants indicated the most prevalent barrier was not wanting surgery/preferring to observe (56%), followed by desiring surgery straightaway (15%). Opposition to randomisation/wanting to retain control was recorded in 9% of cases as was the belief that the child’s squint was not severe enough to warrant surgery. Limitations Interviews were not audio-recorded. Not all who consented to interview could be contacted, although the response/contact rate was good (48/62). A few parents did not provide reasons for refusing the trial. Conclusion Opposition to surgery and concerns about surrendering control were common obstacles to participation, whereas parents keen for their child to undergo the operation but happy to defer tended to embrace a ‘nothing to lose’ attitude. Many non-participants would have consented if allowed to choose group, although most of these would have chosen observation. While most parents felt happy with information given and that randomisation was adequately explained, it is of concern that there may be some misunderstanding, which should be addressed in any trial. These findings will inform future trials in childhood exotropia, for example, consideration of preference arms and improving communication. Lessons learnt from the Surgery versus Active Monitoring in Intermittent Exotropia trial could prove valuable to paediatric and surgical trials generally.

Authors’ response: After intermittent exotropia surgery, consecutive esotropia: good or bad? by K K Shoaib

We thank Dr Shoaib for the points raised1 regarding our recent article.2 It is difficult to compare results across studies because differing success criteria are often used, an issue which we mentioned in our discussion and believe should be addressed by future studies. In particular these outcome criteria do not take into account the initial characteristics of the patients studied or assess the control of their deviations. We chose the Pineles et al 3 definition of ‘excellent’ as we wished to use a stringent outcome measure that included motor and sensory parameters. This does not mean that we intended the studies to be directly compared. The mean ages and duration of follow-up of children in the two studies are different, and …