Visual Rehabilitation Using Contact Lens–Assisted Vision Therapy in Adolescent Anisometropic Amblyopia with Exotropia: A 24-Week Case Report 

Abstract:

Purpose: To report the visual rehabilitation of a 16-year-old male diagnosed with long-standing anisometropic amblyopia and exotropia through a structured vision therapy program combined with soft contact lens correction over 24 weeks. This case highlights that significant functional visual recovery may be achievable in adolescents beyond the traditionally defined critical period.

Methods: The patient presented with a best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 6/36 in the amblyopic right eye and 6/6 in the left eye, with high anisometropic refractive error and a constant 45∆ alternate exotropia. Baseline binocular vision assessment revealed suppression in the right eye, poor stereopsis (800 arc seconds on the TNO stereoacuity test), a receded near point of convergence (15 cm), and reduced accommodative and vergence reserves. Contrast sensitivity was measured using the Pelli-Robson chart. Monthly disposable soft contact lenses (CooperVision) were prescribed to provide optimal refractive correction and minimize aniseikonia. A structured vision therapy regimen—comprising in-office and home-based exercises—was delivered in three progressive phases focusing on monocular stimulation, binocular integration, and vergence enhancement.

Results: After 24 weeks of intervention, BCVA in the right eye improved to 6/9, with stereopsis enhanced to 80 arc seconds. Exotropia reduced to 18∆, and other notable gains included normalized accommodative amplitudes, improved vergence control (NPC: 7 cm), enhanced contrast sensitivity, and subjective improvements in visual comfort and academic performance. No adverse effects from contact lens wear or vision therapy were reported.

Conclusion: This case suggests that meaningful visual and binocular function recovery is possible in adolescent patients with amblyopia and strabismus when therapy is individualized, intensive, and sustained. Chronological age should not be considered an absolute barrier to initiating amblyopia treatment. The combined use of contact lens correction and structured vision therapy may represent an effective model for late-onset amblyopia rehabilitation in clinical settings.

Keywords: Anisometropic amblyopia, exotropia, vision therapy, adolescent neuroplasticity, contact lenses, binocular dysfunction, suppression 

BACKGROUND

Amblyopia is a neurodevelopmental visual disorder characterized by reduced best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in one or both eyes, in the absence of any detectable ocular pathology. It affects approximately 2–4% of the general population and remains one of the leading causes of preventable monocular vision loss in children and adolescents (Holmes & Levi, 2018; Sen, Singh, & Saxena, 2022). Among its etiologies, anisometropia and strabismus are most common, frequently coexisting and amplifying the disruption in binocular visual development (Barrett, Bradley, & Candy, 2013).

Strabismus, particularly exotropia—a form of ocular misalignment where one eye turns outward—can be either intermittent or constant. Constant exotropia, as seen in this case, often leads to suppression and impairs the development of binocular functions, such as fusion and stereopsis.

Conventional amblyopia treatment typically involves occlusion therapy (patching) of the dominant eye to force use of the amblyopic eye. While effective in early childhood, compliance challenges, psychosocial discomfort, and a focus on monocular improvement often limit its efficacy. In contrast, vision therapy emphasizes active binocular engagement, targeting suppression, accommodation, vergence, and stereopsis, and may offer a more holistic approach to visual rehabilitation—particularly in older children and adolescents (Scheiman & Wick, 2020).

Historically, amblyopia was considered treatable only during a critical period of visual development—generally up to 7 or 8 years of age. However, emerging evidence suggests that cortical neuroplasticity can persist into adolescence and even adulthood, enabling functional visual gains beyond this age range (Levi & Li, 2009; Bang, Hamilton-Fletcher, & Chan, 2023; Ming et al., 2025). These insights have spurred interest in late-onset amblyopia interventions such as perceptual learning, dichoptic therapy, and vision therapy.

An additional barrier to effective amblyopia rehabilitation in anisometropic cases is aniseikonia—a perceptual difference in image size between the two eyes that hampers binocular fusion and stereopsis. Spectacle correction in high anisometropia often exacerbates aniseikonia due to magnification effects from vertex distance. In contrast, contact lenses reduce this disparity by maintaining closer proximity to the eye, offering better image size symmetry, sensory fusion, and overall binocular coordination (Roberts & Adams, 2002; Abdelzaher et al., 2022; Stokkermans & Day, 2025).

This case report presents the visual and functional rehabilitation of a 16-year-old male with high refractive anisometropic amblyopia and constant exotropia. The individualized management strategy included monthly disposable soft contact lenses and a 24-week structured vision therapy protocol. The patient achieved notable improvements in monocular acuity, binocular coordination, and stereoacuity, reinforcing the growing body of evidence supporting extended-age amblyopia interventions.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 16-year-old male presented to the vision therapy clinic with a primary complaint of persistently reduced visual acuity in his right eye since early childhood. He also reported difficulty sustaining near focus, particularly during prolonged reading and academic tasks, which had adversely affected his school performance. According to his parents, he had been prescribed high-powered spectacles in early school years, but compliance was poor due to cosmetic concerns, discomfort, and lack of perceived visual improvement. A detailed summary of visual and binocular parameters is presented in Table 1.”

Ocular and Medical History

There was no history of ocular trauma, intraocular surgery, systemic illness, or neurological dysfunction. The patient denied any diplopia, headaches, or overt asthenopia but acknowledged intermittent visual fatigue in the right eye. He also described habitual reliance on the left eye for most visual tasks, with a subjective sensation of suppression in the right eye under visually demanding conditions. A positive family history of refractive error and strabismus was noted among first-degree relatives. No history of amblyopia therapy, patching, or previous vision training was reported.

Visual Function Assessment

On examination, uncorrected distance visual acuity using the Snellen chart was 2/60 in the right eye and 6/36 in the left eye. Best-corrected visual acuity (with spectacles) improved to 6/36 in the right eye and 6/6 in the left. Near visual acuity (N notation) was N24 in the right eye and N6 in the left. Subjective refraction revealed a prescription of −14.00 diopters sphere (DS) / −2.50 diopters cylinder (DC) × 35° in the right eye, and −4.50 DS / −1.00 DC × 75° in the left. Left-eye dominance was confirmed using the Miles test. Interpupillary distance measured 60 mm at distance and 56 mm at near.

The cover test revealed a constant alternate exotropia measuring 45 prism diopters (PD) at distance and 40 PD at near. Pupillary reflexes were equal, round, and reactive to light in both eyes. Dilated fundus examination showed a tessellated myopic appearance in the right eye but no other abnormalities; the left eye had a normal fundus. No signs of ocular motility restriction, abnormal head posture, or nystagmus were present.

Binocular Vision and Accommodation Evaluation

Stereopsis was grossly reduced to 800 arc seconds on the TNO stereoacuity test (version 17). The Worth Four Dot test demonstrated central suppression of the right eye at both distance and near. The Near Point of Convergence (NPC) was receded, with a break point at 15 cm. Amplitude of accommodation, measured using Donder’s push-up method, was 6.00 diopters in the right eye and 10.00 diopters in the left, indicating reduced accommodative ability in the amblyopic eye.

Relative accommodation testing showed a Positive Relative Accommodation (PRA) of less than −2.50 DS and a Negative Relative Accommodation (NRA) of +6.50 DS, both reflecting abnormal accommodative function. Vergence facility, tested with 12∆ base-out (BO) and 3∆ base-in (BI) flippers, was reduced at 4 cycles per minute. Fusional vergence reserves at near were borderline (base-in: break at 25∆, recovery at 12∆), indicating limited comfort in maintaining binocular fusion at close distances.

Contrast sensitivity, assessed with the Pelli-Robson chart, was 1.0 log units in the right eye and 1.65 log units in the left, suggesting a marked reduction in the amblyopic eye. Direct ophthalmoscopy revealed eccentric fixation in the right eye, consistent with reduced fixation stability. Red-green bar testing further confirmed suppression of the right eye.

The patient demonstrated high motivation to improve his vision and was fully cooperative throughout the assessment. Both he and his parents expressed strong commitment to the proposed therapy plan. Overall, binocular visual efficiency—especially during sustained near tasks—was significantly compromised.

Table 1: Baseline Binocular and Visual Function Parameters

The clinical findings confirmed a diagnosis of high myopic anisometropic amblyopia in the right eye associated with constant alternate exotropia, central suppression, and significantly reduced stereopsis. The magnitude of anisometropia and the presence of suppression indicated that the amblyopia was sensory in origin, likely long-standing. The binocular vision anomalies, including poor NPC, suppression, abnormal NRA, and reduced fusion ranges, reinforced the need for an integrated rehabilitation plan targeting both monocular and binocular deficits.

DIAGNOSIS:

The patient was diagnosed with anisometropic amblyopia of the right eye (ICD-10: H53.02 – Amblyopia, ex anopsia) secondary to uncorrected high myopic anisometropia (RE: −14.00 DS / −2.50 DC × 35°, LE: −4.50 DS / −1.00 DC × 75°). The longstanding refractive imbalance likely led to chronic cortical suppression of the right eye and underdevelopment of visual function.

In addition, the patient presented with a constant alternate exotropia at both distance and near (ICD-10: H50.10 – Alternating exotropia), which interfered with binocular fusion and contributed to sensory instability. Associated binocular vision anomalies included suppression in the right eye, markedly reduced stereopsis (800 arc seconds), reduced convergence (Near Point of Convergence [NPC]: 15 cm), abnormal accommodative findings (elevated Negative Relative Accommodation [NRA]: +6.50 D), and decreased contrast sensitivity in the amblyopic eye (RE: 1.0 log units). These findings confirmed a diagnosis of sensory amblyopia in the right eye due to uncorrected high anisometropia, accompanied by a constant alternate exotropia contributing to fusional instability. The patient also exhibited central suppression and markedly compromised stereopsis, along with reduced accommodative and vergence reserves in the amblyopic eye.

Surgical intervention for the exotropia was not considered at this stage, as the absence of stable binocular fusion and presence of deep suppression limited the likelihood of favorable surgical outcomes. Therefore, this clinical profile necessitated a dual approach of refractive correction and neuro-optometric vision therapy, tailored to enhance both monocular function and binocular integration.

MANAGEMENT PLAN:

The patient was managed through a multifaceted, evidence-based rehabilitation strategy tailored to address both the optical and binocular vision anomalies. The interventional program spanned 24 weeks and was divided into the following components:

1. Optical Correction

Given the significant anisometropic refractive error and the potential for spectacle-induced aniseikonia, contact lens correction was prioritized in this case. Monthly disposable soft contact lenses (CooperVision) were prescribed for both eyes, offering several advantages over spectacles. This modality minimized image-size disparity between the two eyes, thereby reducing aniseikonia and improving the potential for binocular fusion. Additionally, contact lenses provided improved cosmesis and physical comfort—factors that are particularly important for promoting adherence in adolescents. They also allowed for enhanced peripheral visual input, which is essential for accurate spatial localization and oculomotor coordination. Previous literature supports the use of contact lenses in anisometropic amblyopia management due to their superior image-size matching and reduction of binocular stress (Roberts & Adams, 2002).

2. Vision Therapy (VT) Program

A structured vision therapy (VT) protocol was initiated for the patient, implemented through a combination of in-office sessions and daily home-based activities. The therapy program spanned 24 weeks and was organized into three progressive phases, each targeting specific components of visual rehabilitation: monocular activation, binocular integration, and vergence–accommodative enhancement. In-office sessions were conducted three times per week, each lasting approximately 45 minutes, and were supplemented by 20–30 minutes of daily home-based tasks. The therapy was overseen by an optometrist with specialization in binocular vision, and adherence was supported by active parental involvement, as outlined in Table 2:

Phase I (Weeks 1–6) focused on monocular activation and fixation control in the amblyopic eye. The primary goal was to enhance fixation stability and visual attention. Techniques used during this phase included cheiroscope tracing, monocular fixation in a binocular field (MFBF) task, mirror superimposition exercises, and red-green bar stimulation with suppression monitoring. These exercises are designed to re-establish monocular clarity and prepare the visual system for binocular stimulation.

Phase II (Weeks 7–16) targeted binocular integration and anti-suppression training. The aim was to reduce interocular suppression and promote simultaneous perception and fusion. Techniques in this phase included bar reader tasks with dichoptic filters, Polaroid vectograms, and Brock string therapy with varying fixation distances. The Brock string, a widely used tool in binocular therapy, helps train convergence, divergence, and depth perception through spatial localization. CAM stimulator training was also introduced during this phase. The CAM stimulator, a rotating high-contrast grating disc, is known to activate the visual cortex through temporal frequency stimulation and has been shown to enhance contrast sensitivity and visual acuity in amblyopic eyes (Chaturvedi, Jamil, & Sharma, 2023).

Phase III (Weeks 17–24) was aimed at vergence and accommodative enhancement to solidify binocular coordination under dynamic conditions. Exercises included vergence flipper training using 12∆ base-out and 3∆ base-in prisms, jump duction activities with prism bars, accommodative flippers (±2.00 diopters), and computerized therapy modules using red-green anaglyphic platforms for home-based compliance. These techniques were designed to improve fusional reserves, accommodative facility, and depth perception.

3. Monitoring and Follow-Up

The patient was reviewed at four-week intervals to track progress, reinforce motivation, and make phase-wise adjustments to the therapy protocol. Key outcome measures assessed during follow-up visits included distance and near visual acuity, stereoacuity using the TNO test, suppression checks with the Worth Four Dot and red-green bar tests, convergence reserves and near point of convergence (NPC), and contrast sensitivity evaluated with the Pelli-Robson chart. The patient demonstrated consistent participation, and compliance with home exercises was high throughout the intervention period.

Table 2. Vision Therapy Protocol: Phases, Techniques, and Objectives

RESULTS AND OUTCOMES:

Throughout the 24-week intervention, the patient demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements across multiple visual function parameters, as summarized in Tables 3 and 4.

Visual acuity in the amblyopic right eye improved progressively from 6/36 at baseline to 6/9 by week 24, indicating substantial monocular visual gain. Stereoacuity improved from a baseline of 800 arc seconds to 80 arc seconds, showing enhanced binocular depth perception. Additionally, near point of convergence (NPC) improved from 15 cm to 7 cm, and contrast sensitivity in the right eye increased from 1.0 to 1.5 log units on the Pelli-Robson chart. Vergence facility and accommodative amplitudes also normalized, contributing to better visual comfort and reduced fatigue during near tasks.

Subjective feedback indicated noticeable improvements in academic performance, reading fluency, and sustained visual attention. No adverse events or complications were reported during contact lens wear or therapy sessions, and home exercise compliance remained consistently high.

Table 3. Baseline vs. Post-Therapy Clinical Findings

In addition to these objective improvements, the patient reported substantial subjective gains, including:

Reduced eye strain and visual discomfort during near tasks

  Enhanced reading speed and comprehension

  Improved academic performance and classroom engagement

  Increased self-confidence during visual tasks and sports activities

Therapy adherence exceeded 90% as verified by guardian-signed home therapy logs and therapist records. No adverse ocular events or lens-related complications were observed during the treatment period.

DISCUSSION:

This case underscores the potential for clinically meaningful visual and functional improvements in a 16-year-old patient with high anisometropic amblyopia and constant exotropia through a structured vision therapy protocol and individualized optical correction. Historically, amblyopia was considered untreatable beyond early childhood. However, accumulating evidence has demonstrated the persistence of cortical plasticity into adolescence and even adulthood, enabling functional recovery through targeted visual stimulation (Levi & Li, 2009; Bang, Hamilton-Fletcher, & Chan, 2023; Ming et al., 2025).

The vision therapy regimen, structured in progressive phases, targeted monocular fixation, binocular fusion, and vergence–accommodation coordination. Each stage was designed to activate the visual cortex and rehabilitate binocular mechanisms. Research supports that perceptual learning tasks and repetitive, goal-oriented visual training can induce long-term synaptic changes in visual processing pathways, even in older individuals (Niechwiej-Szwedo, Colpa, & Wong, 2019; Chaturvedi, Jamil, & Sharma, 2023; Ming et al., 2025).

The improvement in stereoacuity—from 800 to 80 arc seconds on the TNO test—reflects notable gains in binocular integration. As a global stereopsis measure using random dot stereograms, the TNO test is particularly sensitive to binocular fusion anomalies and has been shown to correlate with cortical activation in V1 and extrastriate areas (Vancleef et al., 2017; Bang et al., 2023; Martins Rosa et al., 2013). This suggests successful re-engagement of binocular neurons and supports current models of Hebbian and homeostatic plasticity in adult visual rehabilitation.

Contact lens correction played a vital adjunctive role by minimizing aniseikonia—a key barrier to fusion in patients with high anisometropia. Spectacle lenses, particularly in high refractive error cases, can create magnification disparities due to vertex distance, which compromise binocular summation. Soft contact lenses offer a more physiologically aligned image size between the eyes, thereby facilitating binocular alignment and fusion (Roberts & Adams, 2002; Abdelzaher et al., 2022; Stokkermans & Day, 2025). In this case, monthly disposable soft lenses improved retinal image quality, comfort, and compliance, optimizing the visual environment for therapy.

The co-occurrence of anisometropic amblyopia and constant exotropia further complicated the visual presentation. Such dual pathology compounds visual suppression and oculomotor dysfunction. Although traditionally considered less amenable to treatment in adolescence, updated clinical guidelines support active management even in older children and teens, particularly those with no prior interventions and high intrinsic motivation (Chen & Cotter, 2016; Sen, Singh, & Saxena, 2022). In this case, improved NPC, vergence facility, and accommodative amplitudes support the effectiveness of this dual-focused therapeutic model.

The patient also reported perceived improvements in reading fluency, academic performance, and visual endurance—subjective gains that reinforce the broader psychosocial impact of vision rehabilitation. These functional improvements align with findings from recent clinical reports that emphasize the link between visual function and cognitive–behavioral outcomes in adolescents (Sen et al., 2022; Varshney, Singal, & Thakor, 2025).

Moreover, the use of interactive tools such as cheiroscope tracing, Brock string, and red–green bar training aligns with modern therapeutic guidelines advocating engaging, neuroplasticity-driven methods for adolescent amblyopia care (Chaturvedi et al., 2023; Varshney, Solanki, Mahida, & Patel, 2024). Incorporating these tools likely contributed to the patient’s motivation and therapy adherence, enhancing long-term treatment outcomes.

In conclusion, this case supports the reevaluation of age-based limitations in amblyopia treatment. Combining optimized refractive correction with evidence-based binocular therapy can produce functional and meaningful recovery even beyond the traditionally defined critical period. A comprehensive, individualized approach—centered on neuroplasticity, binocular integration, and patient engagement—may offer a more effective strategy for managing complex amblyopia presentations in adolescents.

LIMITATIONS:

While the outcomes of this case were encouraging, certain limitations must be acknowledged. This is a single-subject case report, which inherently restricts the generalizability of its findings. The absence of a control or comparative group prevents direct attribution of improvements solely to the vision therapy protocol.

Furthermore, although binocular function assessments were conducted using standard clinical tools (e.g., TNO stereo test, Worth Four Dot, Pelli-Robson chart), more quantitative and objective measures such as eye-tracking systems, synoptophore recordings, or vergence facility analyzers were not employed. These tools could have offered greater precision in documenting fixation stability, fusional dynamics, and binocular motor alignment during and after therapy.

Additionally, the long-term sustainability of visual improvements remains unknown as post-therapy follow-up data beyond 24 weeks is currently unavailable. Future studies incorporating long-term monitoring and larger sample sizes are essential to validate these findings and evaluate the persistence of visual gains.

CONCLUSION:

This case challenges the longstanding belief that amblyopia management beyond early childhood yields limited benefit. Through a structured vision therapy protocol and the use of monthly disposable soft contact lenses to correct high anisometropic refractive error, clinically meaningful improvements in visual acuity, stereopsis, suppression, and oculomotor control were documented in an adolescent patient.

The outcomes support emerging evidence that visual neuroplasticity can persist beyond the traditionally defined critical period and, when appropriately targeted, may facilitate functional recovery. Clinicians should be encouraged to explore individualized, multimodal intervention strategies in adolescents with previously untreated or suboptimally managed amblyopia and associated binocular vision anomalies. This case contributes to the evolving understanding of amblyopia treatment and highlights the potential of integrated optometric approaches in restoring both functional vision and quality of life in young patients.

DECLARATIONS:

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate: Written informed consent for participation and publication was obtained from the patient and his legal guardians following institutional and ethical guidelines. Ethical approval was not required as per local IRB policy for single-subject case reports.

Consent for Publication: Written and verbal consent were obtained from the patient and guardians for use of clinical data and images in publication.

Availability of Data and Materials: The datasets and therapy records used in this case are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Funding: No external funding was received for this study.

Author Contributions:

 Dr. Ankit Sanjay Varshney: Conceptualization, supervision, clinical management, manuscript editing

Ms. Gauri Singal: Data acquisition, literature review, manuscript drafting

REFERENCES

Ming, X., Huang, G., Chen, X., Liao, M., & Liu, L. (2025). A systematic review and meta-analysis of perceptual learning and video game training for adults with monocular amblyopia. Ophthalmology and Therapy, 14(5), 857–881. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-025-01128-9

Varshney, A., Singal, G., & Thakor, S. (2025). Structured vision therapy for refractive anisometropic amblyopia in a pediatric patient: A detailed case report aligned with international clinical guidelines. The Explorers, 1(2), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15659025

Stokkermans, T. J., & Day, S. H. (2025). Aniseikonia. In StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK585108/

Varshney, A., Solanki, G., Mahida, H., & Patel, C. (2024). The prevalence and association of refractive errors in pediatric strabismus: A prospective observational study. SSR Journal of Medical Sciences (SSRJMS), 1(1), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14005882

Bang, J. W., Hamilton-Fletcher, G., & Chan, K. C. (2023). Visual plasticity in adulthood: Perspectives from Hebbian and homeostatic plasticity. The Neuroscientist, 29(1), 117–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/10738584211037619

Chaturvedi, I., Jamil, R., & Sharma, P. (2023). Binocular vision therapy for the treatment of amblyopia—A review. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, 71(5), 1797–1803. https://doi.org/10.4103/IJO.IJO_3098_22

Abdelzaher, H. A., Sidky, M. K., Awadein, A., & Hosny, M. (2022). Aniseikonia and visual functions with optical correction and after refractive surgery in axial anisometropia. International Ophthalmology, 42(6), 1669–1677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-021-02161-w

Sen, S., Singh, P., & Saxena, R. (2022). Management of amblyopia in pediatric patients: Current insights. Eye (London), 36(1), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-021- 01669-w

Niechwiej-Szwedo, E., Colpa, L., & Wong, A. M. F. (2019). Visuomotor behaviour in amblyopia: Deficits and compensatory adaptations. Neural Plasticity, 2019, 6817839. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6817839

Holmes, J., & Levi, D. (2018). Treatment of amblyopia as a function of age. Visual Neuroscience, 35, e002. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952523817000220

Vancleef, K., Read, J. C. A., Herbert, W., Goodship, N., Woodhouse, M., & Serrano-Pedraza, I. (2017). Overestimation of stereo thresholds by the TNO stereotest is not due to global stereopsis. Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics, 37(4), 507–520. https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.12371

Chen, A. M., & Cotter, S. A. (2016). The Amblyopia Treatment Studies: Implications for clinical practice. Advances in Ophthalmology and Optometry, 1(1), 287–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yaoo.2016.03.007

Barrett, B. T., Bradley, A., & Candy, T. R. (2013). The relationship between anisometropia and amblyopia. Progress in Retinal and Eye Research, 36, 120–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2013.05.001

Martins Rosa, A., Silva, M. F., Ferreira, S., Murta, J., & Castelo-Branco, M. (2013). Plasticity in the human visual cortex: An ophthalmology-based perspective. BioMed Research International, 2013, 568354. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/568354

Levi, D. M., & Li, R. W. (2009). Perceptual learning as a potential treatment for amblyopia: A mini-review. Vision Research, 49(21), 2535–2549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2009.02.010

Roberts, C. J., & Adams, G. G. (2002). Contact lenses in the management of high anisometropic amblyopia. Eye (London), 16(5), 577–579. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.eye.6700159

The PDF view of the article