Prevalence of residual amblyopia in adulthood and its association on educational outcome and quality of life in the Northern Finland Birth Cohort

Abstract Purpose The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the prevalence of residual amblyopia in adults in a population screened and treated in childhood. We also wanted to evaluate the association of amblyopia on school success, level of education, and quality of life. Methods This is a fo...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Acta Ophthalmologica
Main Authors: Liinamaa, M. Johanna, Leiviskä, Ilmari L., Saarela, Ville O.
Other Authors: Mary och Georg C. Ehrnrooths Stiftelse, Silmäsäätiö, Suomen Lääketieteen Säätiö
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2023
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aos.15660
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/aos.15660
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full-xml/10.1111/aos.15660
Description
Summary:Abstract Purpose The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the prevalence of residual amblyopia in adults in a population screened and treated in childhood. We also wanted to evaluate the association of amblyopia on school success, level of education, and quality of life. Methods This is a follow‐up study of 2708 subjects of the Northern Finland Birth Cohort. At the age of 46, the subjects took part in ophthalmic examinations, including the measurement of best‐corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and refraction. Residual amblyopia was defined as BCVA 20/30 or less (logMAR ≥0.2) in one or both eyes or a two‐line interocular visual acuity difference and absence of any pathological ocular factors. The quality of life was assessed with a 15D questionnaire, and educational outcome, school success, and episodic memory with a CANTAB‐PAL (paired associates learning) test were evaluated. Results The prevalence of amblyopia in the current adult population aged 46 years was 1.3% ( n = 36). At 14 years, the amblyopia subjects had had significant differences in mean spherical equivalent between the amblyopic and fellow eye and strabismus more often than controls. No significant differences were observed in the CANTAB‐PAL test or in educational outcome. However, amblyopia subjects had significant difficulties in the 15D questionnaire in terms of vision (54% vs. 34%, p = 0.01). Conclusion Due to screening and treatment in childhood, the number of adults with residual amblyopia was low. Despite minor visual impairment and discomfort, they cope very well in life in terms of educational outcome and quality of life.