Squint Free Papers - aioseducation

Squint Free Papers
Table 1: Motor Outcome: Correlation of BPS groups with motor outcome
BPS grade motor outcome (% of patients)
Good Fair Poor
I- very good (n=3) 67 33 0
II- good (n=8) 84 16 0
III- fair (n=12) 64 9 27
IV- poor (n=5) 60 0 40
A significant improvement in the BF score was seen post-op (p=0.0002). The
ANOVA result showed a significant difference in the mean improvement (as
a percentage of scope of improvement) between BPS groups (p=0.0036)[table
2]. A significant difference in percentage of improvement was seen between
group II (good) and group IV (poor) (p=0.003) [table 3].
Table 2: Sensory Otcome: Comparison of pre-op BPS with Binocular
function (BF) score
Bps Mean Mean Mean Mean
Grade Pre-op Bf Post-op Bf Improvemen Improvemen
Score Score T T as A % of
Scope for
Improvemen
T
I-very good 9±1.7 10±0 1.0±1.7 100
II-good 3.7±1.9 10±0 6.3±1.9 100±0
III-fair 4.7±3.4 7.3±3.8 2.5±3.5 50±53.5
IV-poor 2.8±0.4 3.6±1.3 0.8±1.8 10±22.4
Table 3: Inter BPS group comparison for percentage improvement in
BF score
Between grades P value for difference
in % improvement of BF score
Good vs fair 0.071
Good vs poor 0.003
Fair vs poor 0.230
Those with pre-op BF score 10 (2 patients in group I and 3 in group III) were
excluded from this analysis because they had no scope for improvement. Since
there was only one observation left in “Very good’ group after this, it was
not possible to estimate the standard error and therefore this group was not
considered for comparison of means.
833