[Binocular status of dyslexics--are there differences to a healthy comparison group?]

Despite numerous studies dealing with the question of a possible relation of visual problems and dyslexia, which is negated by most ophthalmologists, some opticians still favour the treatment of dyslexia by correction of the "Winkelfehlsichtigkeit" following MCH. Our aim was by also including the Pola test to check the usefulness of this treatment.

In a 2-year prospective study we examined the 4th grade elementary school students in our city who had dyslexia as an assured diagnosis (n = 21). The results were compared to those of an age-matched group without pathological findings regarding their reading and spelling ability (n = 21). Examinations included visual acuity, eye position by cover test, Maddox cylinder and Pola test for near distance, binocular vision (Bagolini and Worth test, Lang test I and II, Titmus test, amplitude of fusion), amplitude of accommodation, refraction in cycloplegia and organic status.

A significant difference was found between the two groups regarding the amplitude of divergence in near (p = 0.009) and far distance (p = 0.019) which were both smaller for the dyslexia group, as well as the binocular near visual acuity (p = 0.04). Using the SAS procedure STEPDISC we discriminated the normal and dyslexia group by amplitude of divergence, near visual acuity and alternating near prism cover test with a sensitivity of 81 % and a specifity of 75 %. The results of the Pola test did not show any significant difference between the groups.

No differences were found between the groups regarding the eye position. Therefore a treatment of dyslexia using prisms does not appear reasonable. However because of the group sizes the significance of the results is limited.