Clinical Investigations on Squint

by C. Schweigger

Right as these conclusions may appear, and as they really are, as far as emmetropia is concerned, they leave out of sight the fact, that the connection between accommodation and convergence is an individual and acquired one. The weak side of the theory lies in the fact, that that relation between accommodation and convergence which is developed in emmetropia in consequence of daily practice, is given as being in itself normal and the one for all conditions of refraction. The relation between accommodation and convergence depends on the state of refraction, and alters with any of its changes in the course of life. In proportion as myopia is gradually developed in originally existing emmetropia, myopes learn to converge to the neighbourhood of their far point without allowing their accommodation to come into action. With hypermetropia it is just the contrary. By far the greater number of hypermetropes learn to use their accommodation without difficulty, even with parallel lines of vision, for they see distant objects clearly, while they neutralise their hypermetropia by accommodation, without sacrificing the parallelism of the visual lines.

It is important to notice that Donders' theory makes convergent squint appear as almost a necessary consequence of hypermetropia. According to Donders, hypermetropes have to choose between the advantages of binocular vision with an effort of accommodation corresponding to the hypermetropia, and relief to the accommodation by too strong convergence with the sacrifice of binocular fixation; and the decision will tend to the latter condition, if circumstances exist which deprecate the value of binocular vision.

The demand for binocular fusion of the retinal images will be greater if both eyes are of equal value; on the contrary it will be less, if the retinal image or the visual acuteness of one eye is less perfect than that of the other. Varieties of weakness; when one eye always receives a clear retinal image, the other an indistinct one; lowering of the visual acuteness of one eye by nebulæ, astigmatism or any other cause. According to Donders all these furnish a reason why, in existing hypermetropia, binocular fixation should be abandoned and convergent strabismus developed.

It cannot be denied that the relation existing between convergent strabismus and hypermetropia may be as Donders represents it; the only question is, whether it really is so. A theory may appear very acceptable, and may rest on a firm physiological basis; it will, however, be more perfect if it answers to facts. Physiological possibility is not always pathological reality, for other unusual causes besides physiological ones acquire value, and so things become pathological. If Donders' theory is right, convergent strabismus must really begin, as soon as double hypermetropia meets with causes which depreciate the value of binocular vision. The theory may be tested then by statistics, which confront the cases of hypermetropia and convergent strabismus with those cases in which hypermetropia meets with Donders' conditions and normal binocular vision still remains.

The statistics, which I have collected, relate to all the cases which have appeared in my private practice during the last ten years. The number would be much more considerable if I had included the patients of the University Clinic; however, the reliability of the single elements of which the statistics are composed was to me more important than the number. In my private practice I have myself examined every case with reference to these statistics for at least five years.

In a large clinic, where more than 5000 new patients annually come under treatment, one must frequently content oneself by satisfying the demands of the moment; thus the sources of inaccuracy in the statistics would be augmented.

Included in the statistics were not merely the cases which came under treatment for squint, but all in which squinting was present or those in which it could be objectively proved (for example, by scars left by previous operations for squint), that squint had formerly existed.

Further, in the following statistics, only those cases were included, where an exact determination of the amount of error was possible; in most cases this was also verified objectively with the ophthalmoscope. In many cases, especially in children, the objective determination of refraction alone is possible, and is practicable only with the greatest difficulty and by the use of atropine.

Those cases deserve particular mention, in which it remained doubtful whether hypermetropia of slight degree or emmetropia was present. Even in full visual acuteness it is not unusual that with weak convex glasses (of less than a dioptre) binocular vision is just as clear as with the naked eyes, while in monocular investigation convex glasses cause a slight indistinctness of vision. Are we to recognise hypermetropia here or not? Opposed to the objection that in covering one eye the hypermetropia is more easily neutralised by accommodation, stands the observation that binocular is, as a rule, clearer than monocular vision, wherefore, in the usual method for testing the sight, unless special precautions are taken, full binocular visual acuteness does not prove the presence of absolutely distinct retinal images. These doubts arise much oftener in lowered visual acuteness. All conclusions which we derive from visual acuteness become very inexact as soon as it is lowered. In such cases, in determining anomalies of refraction we are accustomed to consider the strongest convex—relatively, the weakest concave glass, with which the visual acuteness individually present is reached, as the most correct expression of the hypermetropia or myopia, and with good reason if it is a case of ordering spectacles, as all sources of error in the method of examination are then avoided as far as possible; but it is quite another question if in such cases an exact measurement of the amount of error is required solely for diagnostic purposes; investigation with the ophthalmoscope is then alone decisive and furnishes proof at the same time of how unreliable the determination of the error by testing the vision is, in cases of short sight. One can realise this most readily in cases of myopia with congenital amblyopia; one gets frequently with the most exact correction possible of the objectively determined myopia no better visual acuteness than with a very imperfect one. In one case, for instance, which I have repeatedly examined in the course of years, the degree of myopia determinable by means of the ophthalmoscope amounted to at least 6·5 D., while the weakest concave glass with which the full visual acuteness of 5/24 was attainable was 2·5 D. Under these circumstances, if one relies merely on the trial of vision, the degree of myopia appears too small, that of the hypermetropia, on the contrary, just as much too great.

But even the ophthalmoscopic diagnosis of refraction has its limits of error. It is a question of determining the conditions under which the image of the fundus of the eye still appears distinct. We will except those circumstances which prevent our obtaining a clear erect image of the fundus of the eye, as, for example, high degrees of astigmatism, nebulæ, &c.—even under normal circumstances the fundus of the eye does not always present such sharply-defined lines, that one could form a perfectly safe opinion from the clearness of the image.