方法：前瞻性研究。2018-07/2020-01在我院门诊确诊的并首次接受治疗的单眼弱视患者46例，平均年龄9±3岁，其中男26例，女20例，按照临床诊断分为斜视性弱视组(无屈光不正)，共23例，平均年龄9±3岁，其中男12例，女11例。以及屈光参差性弱视组，共23例，平均年龄9±3岁，其中男14例，女9例。对两组患者采用遮盖及精细训练治疗弱视，于治疗前及治疗后采用国际标准视力表检测视力、用Titmus图谱行立体视锐度的检测。比较两组患者经弱视治疗前后最佳矫正视力及立体视恢复的差异。

结果：治疗前两组患者弱视眼的最佳矫正视力无差异(t=-0.475，P>0.05)，但斜视性弱视患者的立体视功能明显低于屈光参差性弱视患者(t=-3.919，P<0.001)； 通过2mo的治疗，两组患者最佳矫正视力提高值有明显差异(t=-2.946，P<0.01)，而两组患者立体视提高值无差异(t=1.305，P>0.05)； 通过6mo的治疗，两组患者最佳矫正视力提高差值有明显差异(t=-2.353，P<0.05)，两组患者立体视提高差值也有明显差异(t=2.218，P<0.05)； 但在6mo时斜视性弱视患者的立体视水平仍低于屈光参差性弱视患者(t=-2.760，P<0.01)。

结论：治疗前视力相同的斜视性弱视与屈光参差性弱视，斜视性弱视患者的立体视功能损伤更重。通过治疗，屈光参差性弱视患者的视力恢复较快，而斜视性弱视患者的立体视功能恢复较快，但其立体视功能水平仍低于屈光参差性弱视患者。

METHODS: Prospective study. Forty-six individuals(mean age 9±3 years old, 26 males, 20 females)with previously untreated monocular amblyopia were recruited in our hospital from July 2018 to January 2020. There were 23 patients with strabismus monocular amblyopia(mean age 9±3 years old, 12 males, 11 females)and 23 patients with anisometropia monocular amblyopia(mean age 9±3 years old, 14 males, 9 females). The best corrected visual acuity(Tumbling E Chart)and stereopsis(Titmus)were measured before and after a 6mo period of comprehensive treatment(refractive correction, patching and precision eyesight training). The differences of monocular visual benefits(visual acuity)and binocular visual benefits(stereopsis)between two groups before and after treatment were compared.

RESULTS: Before treatment, there was no significant difference of best corrected visual acuity between anisometropia amblyopia and strabismus amblyopia(t= -0.475, P>0.05), but the stereopsis of strabismus amblyopia was significantly lower than that of anisometropia amblyopia(t= -3.919, P<0.001). After 2mo treatment, there was a significant difference in best corrected visual acuity benefits between anisometropia amblyopia and strabismus amblyopia(t= -2.946, P<0.01), but there was no significant difference in stereopsis benefits between anisometropia amblyopia and strabismus amblyopia(t=1.305, P>0.05). After 6mo treatment, there was a significant difference in visual acuity benefits between anisometropia amblyopia and strabismus amblyopia(t= -2.353, P<0.05), and there was also a significant difference in stereopsis benefits between anisometropia amblyopia and strabismus amblyopia(t=2.218, P<0.05). However, the stereopsis of strabismus amblyopia was still lower than that of anisometropia amblyopia at 6mo(t=-2.760, P<0.01).

CONCLUSION: We conclude that the stereopsis of patients with strabismus amblyopia is more severe than those with anisometropic amblyopia before treatment under the same visual acuity. The visual acuity of patients with anisometropic amblyopia recovers faster than patients with strabismus amblyopia through treatment. While the stereopsis of patients with strabismus amblyopia recovers faster than patients with anisometropic amblyopia, but the level of stereopsis with strabismus amblyopia is still lower than that of patients with anisometropic amblyopia.