Comparative Effects of Traditional Patching and Green Tint Therapy on Contrast Sensitivity, Visual Acuity and Eye Strain in Patients with Amblyopia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.68279/m1s9x315Keywords:
Amblyopia; Patching Therapy; Green Tint Therapy; Visual Acuity; Contrast Sensitivity; Eye Strain; LogMAR; Pelli–Robson; CVS-Q.Abstract
Background: Amblyopia is a developmental visual disorder commonly treated with occlusion therapy, although alternative approaches may offer additional options for improving visual function and treatment-related symptoms. Objective: To compare traditional patching and green tint therapy for visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and eye strain in children with amblyopia. Methods: This randomized controlled trial included 54 children allocated equally to patching (n=27) and green tint therapy (n=27). Visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and eye strain were assessed before and after treatment using LogMAR measurements, the Pelli–Robson chart, and the Computer Vision Syndrome Questionnaire (CVS-Q), respectively. Paired-samples t-tests assessed within-group changes, and independent-samples t-tests compared groups at follow-up. Results: Both groups demonstrated significant pre-to-post changes in visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and CVS-Q scores (all p<0.001). At follow-up, right-eye LogMAR visual acuity was 0.39±0.15 with patching and 0.28±0.12 with green tint therapy (p=0.005), while corresponding left-eye values were 0.38±0.14 and 0.27±0.11 (p=0.002). Right-eye contrast sensitivity was 1.52±0.13 versus 1.69±0.10 and left-eye contrast sensitivity was 1.49±0.14 versus 1.67±0.11 (both p<0.001). CVS-Q scores were 8.2±2.7 and 5.3±2.1, respectively (p<0.001). Conclusion: Both interventions were associated with improved visual and symptom outcomes, while the green tint group showed more favorable follow-up values. Further direct analysis of between-group change is required before concluding greater treatment effectiveness
References
1. Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group. A randomized trial of prescribed patching regimens for treatment of severe amblyopia in children. Ophthalmology. 2003;110(11):2075–2087.
2. Stewart CE, Stephens DA, Fielder AR, Moseley MJ; ROTAS Cooperative. Objectively monitored patching regimens for treatment of amblyopia: randomised trial. BMJ. 2007;335(7622):707.
3. Chen CW, Zhu Q, Duan YB, Yao JY. Comparison between binocular therapy and patching for treatment of amblyopia: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2021;6(1). doi:10.1136/bmjophth-2020-000625.
4. Jost RM, Hudgins LA, Dao LM, Stager DR Jr, Luu B, Beauchamp CL, et al. Randomized clinical trial of streaming dichoptic movies versus patching for treatment of amblyopia in children aged 3 to 7 years. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):4157. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-08010-9.
5. Jin L, Fang Y, Jin C. Binocular treatment for individual with amblyopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2022;101(27). doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000028975.
6. Tsani Z, Ioannopoulos D, Androudi S, Dardiotis E, Papageorgiou E. Binocular treatment for amblyopia: a systematic review. Int Ophthalmol. 2024;44(1):362. doi:10.1007/s10792-024-03259-7.
7. Suwal R, Dev MK, Khatri B, Khadka D, Shrestha A, Sharma S, et al. Impact of active vision therapy compared to conventional patching therapy on visual acuity and stereoacuity in children with amblyopia. J Optom. 2024;17(1):100484. doi:10.1016/j.optom.2023.100484.
8. Hernández-Andrés R, Serrano MA, Alacreu-Crespo A, Luque MJ. Randomised trial of three treatments for amblyopia: vision therapy and patching, perceptual learning and patching alone. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2025;45(1):31–42. doi:10.1111/opo.13395.
9. Rahmani S, Hoseinmenni S, Dehghani C, Jafarzadehpour E, Kangari H, Cooper J, et al. Effect of active vision therapy on contrast sensitivity in bilateral amblyopia. Int J Ophthalmol. 2026;19(8):1550–1555. doi:10.18240/ijo.2026.08.13.
10. Bailey IL, Lovie JE. New design principles for visual acuity letter charts. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1976;53(11):740–745.
11. Pelli DG, Robson JG, Wilkins AJ. The design of a new letter chart for measuring contrast sensitivity. Clin Vision Sci. 1988;2(3):187–199.
12. Seguí MDM, Cabrero-García J, Crespo A, Verdú J, Ronda E. A reliable and valid questionnaire was developed to measure computer vision syndrome at the workplace. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(6):662–673.
13. Jost RM, Birch EE, Wang YZ, Dao LM, Stager D, Luu B, et al. Patch-free streaming contrast-rebalanced dichoptic cartoons versus patching for treatment of amblyopia in children aged 3 to 5 years: a pilot, randomized clinical trial. J AAPOS. 2024;28(5):103991. doi:10.1016/j.jaapos.2024.103991.
14. Sterkin A, Yehezkel O. Binocular treatment of amblyopia: current state and recent advances. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2025;36(3):237–246. doi:10.1097/ICU.0000000000001121.
15. Yuan J, Chen Y, Wang L, Xu M, Liao N, Dai Z, et al. Effect of individualized and adaptive vision training versus 6 hours of patching in children with residual amblyopia: a randomized clinical trial. Ophthalmol Ther. 2026;15(1):443–456. doi:10.1007/s40123-025-01287-9.
16. Nughays RO, Almazroy EA, Elyas SK, Alamoudi A, Batais WT, Bogari AM, et al. Efficacy of dichoptic treatment vs eye patching in pediatric patients with amblyopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Ophthalmol. 2025;19:1999–2009. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S513329.
17. Halabi MH, Aldhahwani B. The efficacy and safety of dichoptic therapy in comparison to patching in children with amblyopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Ophthalmol. 2026;104(2)–e151. doi:10.1111/aos.17583.
18. Krungkraipetch L, Supajitgulchai D, Assawaboonyadech A, Puranawit W, Krungkraipetch K. Short- and long-term outcomes of binocular gaming versus patching in childhood amblyopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Pediatr. 2026;185(2):73. doi:10.1007/s00431-025-06728-y.
19. Asensio-Jurado L, Argilés M, Vinuela-Navarro V, Quevedo-Junyent L, Levi DM. Efficacy of patching combined with action video games in amblyopic children aged 4–10 years: a randomised clinical trial. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2025;45(6):1389–1398. doi:10.1111/opo.13534.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Rabia Riasat, Aamir Gul memon, Muhammad Naveed Babur, Maryam Riasat, Tahreem Khalid, Mahnoor (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
