| Popis: |
Aim: To highlight some areas where there is potential for confusion regarding terminology within orthoptics and to discuss the evidence surrounding these topics. Methods: A literature-based review was performed. Relevant material was identified using Google, PubMed, and an orthoptic journals/conference transactions search facility. A forward citation search was also performed using Web of Knowledge. Results: Ambiguous terms have been highlighted in the areas of strabismus surgery, microtropia, abnormal retinal correspondence and critical periods for visual development. In strabismus surgery, the terms ‘functional’ and ‘cosmetic’ have double meaning and can even be inaccurate. Microtropia has undergone numerous name changes over the years – some geographical, and others due to its multiple clinical presentations. In addition, abnormal retinal correspondence is a term that has become ambiguous due to the advent of macular translocation procedures which physically move the retinal points. Lastly, ‘critical period’ is frequently used in the singular and applied to amblyopia treatment. However, evidence has demonstrated there are three critical periods applied and that the timing of these varies according to which aspect of visual function is being evaluated. Conclusion: Regardless of how ambiguities in orthoptic terminology arise, many issues can be resolved by simply updating the terms used. However, when conducting a review of the literature, the evolution of orthoptic terminology must be accounted for, to ensure accurate evaluation. |
