7

June 1988
Orthoptics for Convergence Insufficiency—Cooper 461
FIG. b. Asthenopsa and accommodative amplitude for three conditions is presented: baseline, phase 1, and phase 2. Between phase 1 and phase 2 the experimental group, which had monocular accommodative therapy. became the control group (placebo therapy) and vice versa It is clear that accommodative therapy decreased asthenopia and improved accommodative amplitude. (Repnnted from Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1987:64:433.)
target changed smoothly and rapidly from a preset BO to a preset B! value. The speed of the target was systematically changed from 2.50^/s to 10^/s and the target separation speed varied between 45^ BO and 10^ BI.
After 12 sessions she showed orthophoria at distance and a small exophoria at near (40 cm) with the cover test. NPC was to the nose; prism vergence ranges using a muscle light with the Krimsky technique revealed BO >45; occlusion to break fusion resulted in an immediate recovery. B! ranges were 20/15^. Topper vectogram fusion ranges were BO >33^ and B! 14/4k. RDS BO ranges were full (greater than 55^) and B! were 22/15^. In summary, there was no evidence of the convergence insufficiency and no further report of diplopia or headaches. The patient has been followed for 2 years without a recurrence of symptoms.

PATIENT 2
This girl was an extremely bright and academically successful 10-year-old. She had a long history of constant diplopia with reading, which she relieved by occluding her eye with her hand. Her family history indicated that her mother also bad a convergence insufficiency.
Unaided visual acuity was 6/6 (20/20) each eye. No refractive error was found. Cover testing at distance showed orthophoria, and at near 15^ constant exotropia. NPC was 51/63 cm with diplopia occurring during deviation. Extraocular movements were full and concomitant. Testing revealed the following: distance phoria 1^ exo; distance BO X/1/0; distance B! X/1/0; near phoria 15 A exo; near BO X/-16/-15^; B! X/ 17/16^ (measured from the phoria). She responded to the 20 sec arc target on the original Randot test at 50 cm. Stereopsis was observed on Topper vectogram at 50 cm. As soon as the vectogram was separated in either a BO or B!
direction diplopia was noted. Fusional ranges were nonexistent. Testing using either a large target or RDS on the Computer Orthopter resulted in the same phenomenon. Accommodative testing demonstrated reduced positive relative accommodation (—1-00 D) and negative relative accommodation (+1.00 D), respectively, monocular accommodative amplitudes were normal(1OD).
Office therapy began with Vectograms and the Computer Orthopter large fusion targets and RDS vergence program. The patient was told to separate the targets slowly in a massaging motion (BO and 131) while trying to maintain fu sion. She was given Brock string, Vectograms, and pushups for home therapy. After four sessions, no further progress was made. The patient was frustrated in not knowing what to do with her eyes. On the fifth session limited fusion ranges were obtained on the RDS vergence pro gram, i.e., 5^. Two sessions later BO ranges were l0^ BO and 3^ B!. Vectogram ranges were BO 3/1^ and BI 3/1^. By the eighth session the patient had learned to make real vergence movements. RDS ranges improved rapidly to BO 25^ and to B! 10^; vectogram ranges improved to BO 25/10^ and B! 11/1^.
She now reported less diplopia and a decrease in asthenopia. Within 9 to 10 sessions, vergence improved rapidly to BO = 45^ and B! = 12g. However, vergence movements could only be maintained if separation was slow. Pushups and Brock string performance improved dramatically (convergence to 2.5 cm). At this point the goal was to increase the speed of separation. Using a manual vergence program, vergence demand was increased slowly from 2.5^/s to 10^/s (#9 to #1 setting). Target size was decreased. Next the auto program was used to build sustaining ability. Disparation occurred automatically between BO = 30^ and B! = 10g. The speed was set at 7^/s. This was done for 5 min before

7