Refractive and Vision Status in Down Syndrome: A Comparative Study
PDF
Cite
Share
Request
Original Article
VOLUME: 51 ISSUE: 4
P: 199 - 205
August 2021

Refractive and Vision Status in Down Syndrome: A Comparative Study

Turk J Ophthalmol 2021;51(4):199-205
1. Noor Eye Hospital, Noor Ophthalmology Research Center, Tehran, Iran
2. Iran University of Medical Sciences, School of Rehabilitation, Department of Optometry, Tehran, Iran
3. Morgan State University, Ascend Center for Biomedical Research, Baltimore, MD, USA
4. Noor Eye Hospital, Noor Research Center for Ophthalmic Epidemiology, Tehran, Iran
No information available.
No information available
Received Date: 12.03.2020
Accepted Date: 06.09.2020
Publish Date: 27.08.2021
PDF
Cite
Share
Request

ABSTRACT

Conclusion:

In DS patients, the prevalence rates of refractive errors, amblyopia, and visual impairment are higher than those in non-DS individuals, and emmetropization appears to be either defective or slow. Cylinder error is stable in this age range, but the rotation of astigmatism axis is different from normal samples.

Results:

In the DS and control groups, respectively, mean age was 17.2±4.8 and 17.2±4.4 years (p=0.993) and 53.0% and 49.5% were male (p=0.473). In the DS and control groups, respectively, mean spherical equivalent (SE) was -5.13±4.47 and -4.15±3.04 diopters (D) in myopics (p=0.050) and 2.47±1.64 and 2.36±2.04 D in hyperopics (p=0.482), mean cylinder error was -2.17±1.39 and -2.05±1.57 D (p=0.451), mean J0 was -0.03±0.89 and 0.12±0.76 D (p=0.086), and mean J45 was 0.11±1.02 and -0.13±1.03 D (p=0.024). The prevalence of oblique astigmatism was higher in the DS group (20.4% vs. 6.1%) while against-the-rule astigmatism was more prevalent in the control group (84.0% vs. 71.6%) (p<0.001). The prevalence of anisometropia was not significantly different between the groups (19.4% vs. 13.8%). Visual impairment was detected in 11.7% of the DS and 0.5% of the control group (p<0.001). The prevalence of amblyopia was 36.3% and 3.8% in the DS and control groups, respectively (p<0.001). Based on the multiple model, only absolute SE inversely correlated with age and differed between males and females (all p<0.05).

Materials and Methods:

Cycloplegic refraction was tested in 213 DS patients and 184 normal age- and gender-matched controls using autorefraction followed by retinoscopy. Data from the worse eye of each case were used in the analyses.

Objectives:

To determine the prevalence of refractive errors and visual impairment in Down syndrome (DS) patients compared to normal controls.

Keywords:
Refractive errors, visual impairment, amblyopia, emmetropization, Down syndrome, comparative study

Introduction

Refractive errors are one of the main items and the fifth priority of the 2020 Vision: Right to Sight Initiative.1 In 2012, a systematic review of surveys in 39 countries showed that uncorrected refractive errors were the leading cause of visual impairment (43%).2 A systematic review in 2018 reported the pooled prevalence of myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism in children worldwide to be 11.7%, 4.6%, and 14.9% respectively, which are considerably high prevalence rates.3 Studies have shown a significant correlation between refractive errors, socioeconomic status, and lifestyle.4 In patients with Down syndrome (DS), quality of life is reduced due to medical conditions,5 and declines further as they age.6 Therefore, the identification and correction of refractive errors in this population deserves even higher priority than in normal populations.

To date, several studies have been done on the prevalence and degree of refractive errors in patients with DS.7,8,9,10,11 These studies were mostly carried out in age groups 10 years of age and younger, and one study reported non-cycloplegic refraction in a group with a mean age of 15 years (range, 4 to 60 years).8,9,10,11

The goal of this study was to determine the prevalence and distribution of refractive errors, type of astigmatism, visual impairment, and amblyopia in order to provide a comprehensive report on the refractive status in this particular population. We used cyclopentolate, as evidence showed that it is the gold standard for epidemiological studies of refraction and increases the reliability of findings.12 The distribution of refraction in DS patients was compared to a group of age- and gender-matched normal controls.

Materials and Methods

Results

After applying the inclusion criteria for this report (having cycloplegic refraction results, no ectasia, and no history of corneal surgery), of the 234 patients with DS and 200 normal controls enrolled into the study, data from 213 DS cases and 184 controls were used in the analyses.

In the DS and control groups, respectively, the mean age was 17.2±4.8 and 17.2±4.4 years (p=0.993), and 53.0% and 49.5% were male (p=0.473). In the DS and control groups, mean UDVA was 0.36±0.34 and 0.86±0.62 logMAR (p<0.001) and mean CDVA was 0.20±0.11 and 0.02±0.06 logMAR (p<0.001), respectively.

Discussion

In this large comparative study, we showed the distribution and prevalence of myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, amblyopia, and visual impairment in a sample of DS patients aged 10-30 years (when the incidence of refractive errors is highest) and compared the results to a group of age- and gender-matched controls. The strength of this study was selecting DS patients from different sources and creating a sample with diverse cases. Although several studies have been done on refractive errors in DS patients, they have often been studied in the 10-year-old age group7,9,10,11 or a broad age range (3 months to 60 years) without cycloplegia.8 As emmetropization has been suggested to be incomplete in DS patients even up to 17 years of age16 and the prevalence of myopia tends to increase in non-DS individuals after the age of 9 years17 and continue up to 30 years of age18, in this study we considered the age range of 10 to 30 years.

Conclusion

Overall, in our sample of 10- to 30-year-old DS patients, the prevalence of refractive errors, astigmatism, visual impairment, and amblyopia was higher than that of their age- and gender-matched controls, and emmetropization appeared to be either defective or slow. The prevalence of refractive and visual complications was similar between males and females. Cylinder error appears to be stable in this age range in DS patients, but the rotation of its axis was different from the controls. These findings are useful for refractive errors correction services for DS patients.

References

1
World Health Organization (WHO). Blindness and vision impairment prevention. Priority eye diseases; http://www.who.int/blindness/causes/priority/en; 2018 [accessed December 17, 2018].
2
Pascolini D, Mariotti SP. Global estimates of visual impairment: 2010. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96:614-618.
3
Hashemi H, Fotouhi A, Yekta A, Pakzad R, Ostadimoghaddam H, Khabazkhoob M. Global and regional estimates of prevalence of refractive errors: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2018;30:3-22.
4
Foster PJ, Jiang Y. Epidemiology of myopia. Eye (Lond). 2014; 28: 202-208.
5
Haddad F, Bourke J, Wong K, Leonard H. An investigation of the determinants of quality of life in adolescents and young adults with Down syndrome. PloS One. 2018;13:e0197394.
6
Shields N, Leonard H, Munteanu S, Bourke J, Lim P, Taylor NF, Downs J. Parent-reported health-related quality of life of children with Down syndrome: a descriptive study. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2018;60:402-408.
7
Adio AO, Wajuihian SO. Ophthalmic manifestations of children with Down syndrome in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. Clin Ophthalmol. 2012;6:1859-1864.
8
Alio JL, Vega-Estrada A, Sanz P, Osman AA, Kamal AM, Mamoon A, Soliman H. Corneal Morphologic Characteristics in Patients With Down Syndrome. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2018;136:971-978.
9
Fimiani F, Iovine A, Carelli R, Pansini M, Sebastio G, Magli A. Incidence of ocular pathologies in Italian children with Down syndrome. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2007;17:817-822.
10
Kim JH, Hwang JM, Kim HJ, Yu YS. Characteristic ocular findings in Asian children with Down syndrome. Eye (Lond). 2002;16:710-714.
11
Stirn Kranjc B. Ocular abnormalities and systemic disease in Down syndrome. Strabismus. 2012;20:74-77.
12
Morgan IG, Iribarren R, Fotouhi A, Grzybowski A. Cycloplegic refraction is the gold standard for epidemiological studies. Acta Ophthalmol. 2015;93:581-585.
13
Makateb A, Hashemi H, Farahi A, Mehravaran S, Khabazkhoob M, Asgari S. Ocular alignment, media, and eyelid disorders in Down syndrome. Strabismus. 2020;28:42-48.
14
Thibos LN, Wheeler W, Horner D. Power vectors: an application of Fourier analysis to the description and statistical analysis of refractive error. Optom Vis Sci. 1997;74:367-375.
15
Ohlsson J. Defining amblyopia: the need for a joint classification. Strabismus. 2005;13:15-20.
16
Doyle SJ, Bullock J, Gray C, Spencer A, Cunningham C. Emmetropisation, axial length, and corneal topography in teenagers with Down’s syndrome. Br J Ophthalmol. 1998;82:793-796.
17
Matsumura H, Hirai H. Prevalence of myopia and refractive changes in students from 3 to 17 years of age. Surv Ophthalmol. 1999;44(Suppl 1):109-115.
18
Hashemi H, Nabovati P, Yekta A, Shokrollahzadeh F, Khabazkhoob M. The prevalence of refractive errors among adult rural populations in Iran. Clin Exp Optom. 2018;101:84-89.
19
Sankaridurg P, He X, Naduvilath T, Lv M, Ho A, Smith E 3rd, Erickson P, Zhu J, Zou H, Xu X. Comparison of noncycloplegic and cycloplegic autorefraction in categorizing refractive error data in children. Acta Ophthalmol. 2017;95:633-640.
20
Wen G, Tarczy-Hornoch K, McKean-Cowdin R, Cotter SA, Borchert M, Lin J, Kim J, Varma R; Multi-Ethnic Pediatric Eye Disease Study Group. Prevalence of myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism in non-Hispanic white and Asian children: multi-ethnic pediatric eye disease study. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:2109-2116.
21
Czepita D, Mojsa A, Ustianowska M, Czepita M, Lachowicz E. Role of gender in the occurrence of refractive errors. Ann Acad Med Stetin. 2007;53:5-7.
22
Hashemi H, Fotouhi A, Mohammad K. The age- and gender-specific prevalences of refractive errors in Tehran: the Tehran Eye Study. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2004;11:213-225.
23
Fotouhi A, Hashemi H, Yekta AA, Mohammad K, Khoob MK. Characteristics of astigmatism in a population of schoolchildren, Dezful, Iran. Optom Vis Sci. 2011;88:1054-1059.
24
Evenhuis HM, Theunissen M, Denkers I, Verschuure H, Kemme H. Prevalence of visual and hearing impairment in a Dutch institutionalized population with intellectual disability. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2001;45:457-464.
25
van Splunder J, Stilma JS, Bernsen RM, Evenhuis HM. Prevalence of ocular diagnoses found on screening 1539 adults with intellectual disabilities. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:1457-1463.
26
Van Buggenhout GJ, Trommelen JC, Schoenmaker A, De Bal C, Verbeek JJ, Smeets DF, Ropers HH, Devriendt K, Hamel BC, Fryns JP. Down syndrome in a population of elderly mentally retarded patients: genetic-diagnostic survey and implications for medical care. Am J Med Genet. 1999;85:376-384.
27
Hiles DA, Hoyme SH, McFarlane F. Down’s syndrome and strabismus. Am Orthop J. 1974;24:63-68.
28
Jaeger EA. Ocular findings in Down’s syndrome. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1980;158:808-845.
29
Ugurlu A, Altinkurt E. Ophthalmologic Manifestations and Retinal Findings in Children with Down Syndrome. J Ophthalmol. 2020;2020:9726261.