What question did this study set out to answer?

Evaluate if combining physical exercise with conventional occlusion therapy improves visual recovery in adults with unilateral amblyopia.

May 2, 2026

Comparison of conventional occlusion and occlusion combined with physical exercise in adults with amblyopia: a randomized controlled trial.

Key Points

Evaluate if combining physical exercise with conventional occlusion therapy improves visual recovery in adults with unilateral amblyopia.
30 adults with amblyopia were randomly assigned to occlusion therapy with or without aerobic exercise.
Exercise included supervised sessions on a stationary cycle, three times weekly for four weeks.
Outcomes measured were best-corrected visual acuity and stereoacuity at baseline and monthly for four months.
Stereoacuity improved more significantly in the exercise group (Group B), with 53% achieving measurable stereopsis compared to 27% in Group A.
Both groups showed significant visual improvement, but the exercise-enhanced group had greater treatment gains.
No adverse events were reported during the trial.

Abstract

PURPOSE: Amblyopia in adults has traditionally been regarded as difficult to treat because cortical plasticity declines substantially after critical period. Recent neurophysiological research suggests that aerobic exercise can transiently enhance neuroplasticity, thereby potentially improving the outcome of visual rehabilitation. The present study aimed to evaluate whether incorporating physical exercise with conventional occlusion therapy can augment visual recovery in adults with unilateral amblyopia. METHODS: = 30) received the same occlusion regimen supplemented with supervised aerobic exercise using a stationary cycle. Exercise sessions were conducted three times weekly during initial four weeks, each lasting two hours and comprising alternating cycles of 15-minute pedaling followed by 15 minutes of rest. Distant and near best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were designated as primary outcomes, while stereoacuity was assessed as the secondary outcome. All measurements were repeated at baseline and at monthly intervals for four months. RESULTS: ≤ .03). Stereoacuity improved progressively in both groups, but longitudinal modeling revealed a significantly steeper improvement trajectory in Group B. 53% of Group B achieved measurable stereopsis compared with 27% of Group A. No adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: While both interventions resulted in significant visual improvement, the addition of exercise to occlusion therapy was associated with greater treatment gains. This combined approach appears efficient and safe.

Mark Helpful

Bookmark

Relay