Purchase this article with an account.
Cindy Xiaopeng Guo; Distance versus near visual acuity in older children and adults with amblyopia. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2016;57(12):3089. doi: https://doi.org/.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
It has previously been reported that near and distance amblyopic eye visual acuity does not differ in 2-6 years old patients. The aim of this study was to compare distance and near visual acuity in older children and adults with amblyopia.
A total of 85 participants (mean age 21, range 7 to 55 years) who had unilateral amblyopia associated with anisometropia, strabismus or both were assessed as part of a randomized clinical trial of a binocular treatment for amblyopia (the BRAVO Study, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry 12613001004752). Inclusion criteria for best corrected distance visual acuity were 0.30 to 1.00 LogMAR inclusive in the amblyopic eye and 0.10 LogMAR or better in the fellow eye, measured at 3 meters using the Electronic Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy (E-ETDRS) protocol on an Electronic Visual Acuity (EVA) Tester. Near visual acuity was measured at 0.4 meters using a Good-Lite Sloan Letters Near Vision Card. The Good-Lite test allows for near visual acuity to be measured to -0.30 LogMAR.
Mean visual acuity was better at distance than near in the amblyopic (0.52 LogMAR at distance versus 0.60 LogMAR at near; mean difference -0.08, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.06, p < 0.0001) and fellow eye (-0.12 LogMAR at distance versus -0.05 LogMAR at near, mean difference -0.07, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.05, p < 0.0001). However, mean interocular visual acuity difference was similar at distance and near (0.63 LogMAR at distance versus 0.65 LogMAR at near, mean difference -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.01, p = 0.328).
Interocular visual acuity difference remained constant at distance and near. Significant differences in monocular visual acuity for each eye at distance and near were most likely due to the use of different tests at each distance.
This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2016 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, Wash., May 1-5, 2016.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only