Glasses Versus Observation for Moderate Bilateral Astigmatism in 1- to <7-Year-Olds

To compare visual outcomes in children with moderate bilateral astigmatism treated with glasses with those who were merely observed.

Retrospective case series.

The medical records of all children 1 to <7 years of age who were diagnosed with moderate bilateral astigmatism (+1.25 to +3.25 diopters [D]) at a single institution over a 12-year period were retrospectively reviewed. Children with anisometropia ≥1.00 D, hyperopia ≥+3.00 D, myopia ≥-3.00D, amblyopia, or strabismus at diagnosis were excluded. Observation or full spectacle correction of astigmatism was at the provider's discretion. Kaplan-Meier rates of developing amblyopia and strabismus were assessed over a minimum follow-up of 18 months.

Eighty-five (6.9%) of 1235 subjects met the inclusion criteria; 58 (68.2%) were prescribed glasses while 27 (31.8%) were observed. The groups differed by mean age at diagnosis (3.56 ± 1.42 years for observed vs 4.31 ± 1.36 years for glasses [P = .03]) and mean amount of astigmatism (1.73 ± 0.43 D for observed vs 2.00 ± 0.51 D for glasses [P = .02]). By 4 years of follow-up, the Kaplan-Meier rate of developing amblyopia was 8.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0%-19.4%) in the observed group and 10.3% (95% CI 1.5%-19.1%) in the glasses group [P = .74] while strabismus was 7.1% (95% CI 0%-20.6%) among those observed and 7.1% (95% CI 0.4%-13.8%) of those prescribed glasses [P = .60].

Rates of amblyopia and strabismus were similar and modest in this cohort of children with moderate bilateral astigmatism treated with glasses vs observation. These results suggest that prescribing glasses for these children may be no better than observation in preventing the development of amblyopia or strabismus.