Clinical Investigations on Squint

by C. Schweigger

In convergent strabismus, however, no one, at least no ophthalmologist, thinks of entertaining such fears for the eye used in fixation, and where is the physiological basis of this whole idea to be found? Is the visual purple more active in monocular than in binocular vision, or what physiological activity is thereby taxed in increased degree?

I have found no confirmation of Alfred Graefe's theory that in myopia the eye chiefly used in fixation is frequently affected with choroiditis of the macula lutea, &c., but have only observed that patients to whom this happens seek the advice of a physician more eagerly than when the same intra-ocular troubles befall the other usually neglected eye in connection with myopia.

Muscular asthenopia undoubtedly occurs; it is only a question whether it is as frequent as it is diagnosed. It has its foundation in that the convergence necessary for reading, writing, &c., can only be sustained by an effort of the internal recti, which exceeds their strength, and finally results in painful fatigue of the muscles, just as accommodative asthenopia depends on painful fatigue of the muscles of accommodation. The similarity reaches still further. We occasionally find that despite considerable degrees of hypermetropia no asthenopia occurs even in persons who strain their eyes; while, on the other hand, asthenopic troubles appear in hypermetropia which are not removed by correction of the refraction and must consequently have some other motive. Yet still more is this the case with those disorders, of which muscular asthenopia may be supposed to be the cause. Notwithstanding the existence of a considerable preponderance of the externi, muscular asthenopia may be entirely absent. If we find, for example, that as soon as we do away with binocular single vision absolute divergence occurs even on looking at a distant fixed point, and that prisms of 12° to 30° are overcome by divergence, we may safely assume that the elastic preponderance of the externi must be overcome in reading, &c., in the interest of binocular, single vision by a stronger muscular effort of the interni, which is, however, very frequently accomplished without fatigue. Asthenopic disorders are also frequently present together with preponderance of the externi, which continue to exist despite the removal of the same by operation, and must consequently have some other cause. The diagnosis of accommodative asthenopia is as a rule confirmed ex juvantibus; this cannot be asserted for the muscular form.

For example, Case 15.—Mathilde F—, æt. 21, has suffered from asthenopic disorders for three years. The investigation at the beginning of January, 1880, shows: On the left, myopia 4 D., V. = 5/18, No. 0·3 is read at 10 cm.; on the right, myopia 6 D., V. 5/24, 0·3 is read with difficulty, cylindrical glasses cause no improvement. Patient converges to about 8 cm., on exclusion absolute divergence of 3 to 4 mm. follows, with slight upward deviation of the right eye.

On correction of the myopia the facultative divergence amounts to = 26°. Here one might easily have concluded the asthenopia to be a result of fatigue of the interni, but this opinion was refuted by the effect of the treatment. The double tenotomy of the externi performed on January 2nd was first followed by convergent squint with homonymous double images, which were united by a prism of 12° with the base inwards. In the course of a few days single vision was again restored. A fortnight after the operation, on correction of the myopia, patient could see singly to 3 mtr.: towards both sides homonymous double images were still present, and in fixation to 30 cm. relative divergence on exclusion of one eye. Six months after the operation, on correction of the myopia and application of red glass to one eye, crossed double images occur close together, which become homonymous by means of a prism of 3° with the base inwards. Patient sees double images always, without being much disturbed by them, yet they cannot be united by means of prisms. The habit of binocular single vision has also gradually been lost. In reading (without correction) a movement of convergence takes place (it cannot be determined whether this answers exactly to the distance of the object). If, on the other hand, one asks the patient to fix binocularly larger objects, such as a pencil close to her, she is unable to do it, relative divergence occurs then, as well as on exclusion of one eye. The asthenopic disorders remain unchanged and are not removed even by prismatic spectacles. Despite all reasons then for the supposition the asthenopia was certainly not of a muscular nature.

The uncertainty as to diagnosis is still greater in those cases which, according to v. Graefe, were to be designated as dynamic relative divergence; cases in which with parallel visual axes a disturbed balance is not present but occurs on convergence in such a way that the interni only perform their destined work with difficulty, and are nevertheless urged on in the interest of binocular single vision, till they give way in painful fatigue.

According to v. Graefe the diagnosis of this condition must be carried out in the following way. First of all the convergence must be fixed on a near object in the median line; if one eye remains behind in the movement it may be accounted for in various ways, for example, the impediment of movement caused by the change in form of the eye in myopia or the faulty innervation of the interni mentioned on p. 54. In both cases for the most part no dynamic, but manifest relative divergence is present in viewing near objects. It may also happen that the patient does not converge sufficiently, merely because accommodation is absent. This experiment does not then prove the presence of dynamic relative convergence, and v. Graefe came to the conclusion, therefore, that a normal position of the eyes obtained only by the habit of binocular single vision must be relinquished so soon as we cause binocular single vision to cease. Just as under these circumstances dynamic absolute divergence is manifested in the observance of distant objects, so must this be the case in dynamic relative divergence in the observance of near objects. One eye is first excluded while looking at an object about 25 cm. distant, to determine whether it still remains in a proper position for fixation. We have reason to believe that the position which occurs in the excluded eye answers to the given conditions of tension of the muscles. Still it is not necessary to cause binocular vision quite to cease, it is sufficient and even more advantageous, simply to make binocular single vision impossible, which we are able to do by means of prisms. If, for example, a point be fixed lying at the usual distance for work of 25 to 30 cm., or, according to v. Graefe, a large spot intersected by a vertical line, and one then applies a vertically deviating prism to one eye, the influence of binocular single vision on the ocular muscles is removed, as the fusion of the double images standing above one another is impossible; and nothing prevents the assumption of a relative position of divergence instead of a proper convergent one; as a result of this the double images show a crossed lateral position as well as the difference in height produced by the prism. The extent of this lateral deviation may be measured by means of prisms, which being applied to the eyes with the bases inwards place the double images again perpendicularly above one another. Von Graefe holds it to be of importance to determine the strongest prisms which can be overcome for the given distance by means of convergence and by the outward movement of the eyes.

On the strength of this method of inquiry there is a prevalence of opinion that the asthenopic disorders common in myopia are caused by over-exertion of the ocular muscles; indeed people believe this so strongly that they assume the presence of muscular asthenopia even in individuals in whom the habit of working with relative divergence is already firmly rooted. Relative divergence may perchance cause annoyance through double images, though this really seldom happens, but it can never cause muscular asthenopia, for the internal recti muscles protect themselves by means of relative divergence from any stronger exertion.

Asthenopic disturbances are certainly frequent in myopia, but the above method of inquiry does not at all prove that their cause lies in the ocular muscles, for those appearances from which one concludes dynamic relative divergence and muscular asthenopia, are found in almost all myopes, even when the latter have no asthenopic troubles, for they owe their origin to the nature of the myopia. Myopes learn to converge to the distance of their far point, without exerting the accommodation; if we now cause a point at this distance to be fixed and then exclude one eye, or make binocular fusion impossible by means of vertical prisms, what imaginable reason is there for the excluded eye to remain in proper fixation? In emmetropia the habitual relation between accommodation and convergence will be able to ensure that the excluded eye also remains covering the fixed object, convergently as well as accommodatively; in myopia, every discretionary relative divergence up to parallelism of the lines of vision is perfectly justified, because no effort of the accommodation takes place. How in the world can it be held to be pathological that a movement of convergence does not occur, when one has just artificially removed all those physiological conditions which could possibly have brought it about? If one now likes, as v. Graefe proposes, to determine the prisms, which can be overcome by means of the outward movement, there is no doubt about the fact, that with the aid of prisms the lines of vision may be made parallel or even divergent, the retinal images indeed, always retaining the same distinctness, in so far as they are not injured by the prismatic diffusion of colours. There is just as little reason why the convergence usually attainable should not also be restored by the aid of prisms with the bases outwards, the retinal images are not only impaired by the prisms, but the accommodation united with the convergence, no longer corresponds to the real distance of the fixed point.

Enough, all these incidents, which are to prove the presence of muscular asthenopia in myopia, occur when the investigation is carried out as usual in the region of the far point, entirely on a physiological basis, and must not therefore be held to be pathological without further proof.