Optometry & Visual Performance 178 Volume 14 | Issue 2 | June 2026 RNFL Thickness Myopic Amblyopia Hypermetropic Amblyopia Astigmatic Amblyopia F P-value Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Nasal Quadrant 91.07 30.78 94.11 22.202 89.08 18.720 0.305 0.738 Temporal Quadrant 72.67 11.98 70.39 18.449 69.32 13.973 0.274 0.761 SupraTemporal Quadrant 140.60 23.874 132.89 18.739 130.47 15.305 1.662 0.197 SupraNasal Quadrant 103.93 22.864 134.50 29.159 122.03 25.251 5.756 0.005 InferoNasal Quadrant 127.80 26.138 137.17 26.320 136.74 30.674 0.591 0.556 InferoTemporal Quadrant 146.80 13.241 138.72 22.533 143.18 25.628 0.524 0.595 Globally 106.07 12.157 108.17 14.738 103.13 18.425 0.613 0.545 Table 5. RNFL Thickness in Different Types of Amblyopia RNFL Thickness Glasses without patching Glasses with patching T P-value Mean SD Mean SD Nasal Quadrant 90.66 23.551 90.89 21.423 0.002 0.966 Temporal Quadrant 73.09 15.779 67.58 13.244 2.539 0.116 SupraTemporal Quadrant 136.11 19.165 130.42 17.451 1.717 0.194 SupraNasal Quadrant 124.60 24.997 118.22 29.798 0.952 0.333 InferoNasal Quadrant 132.60 28.907 137.25 28.454 0.467 0.497 InferoTemporal Quadrant 140.40 18.820 145.17 25.905 0.783 0.379 Globally 106.91 10.430 103.19 20.499 0.921 0.341 Table 6. RNFL Thickness Between Amblyopic and NonAmblyopic Eyes Another study conducted by Chen et al.18 used Spectral Domain (SD)-OCT to compare the thickness of the macula and RNFL in children with anisometropic amblyopia. They discovered that the average thickness of the outer macular ring and RNFL was substantially thicker in anisometropic amblyopic eyes than in normal eyes. Furthermore, the macular thickness of both treated amblyopia and untreated amblyopia were the same. They observed that macular and RNFL thicknesses appeared to be more strongly linked with axial length and refraction variations than with amblyopic development. Atsushi Miki and Motohiro Shirakashi10 investigated 26 individuals with persistent unilateral amblyopia and 25 patients with treated unilateral amblyopia. The average RNFL thickness for the consistently amblyopic eyes was 105.5±14.0 µm. This value did not differ substantially from that of the normal eyes (105.2±13.0 µm) or the treated amblyopic eyes (107.1±11.7 µm). Hence, this study also proved that RNFL thickness is not associated with amblyopia. Walker and Rubab12 studied thirty patients older than 18 years. They did not find a significant difference in RNFL thickness between amblyopic and fellow eyes in adults. The average RNFL thickness was 90.6±9.6 µm in amblyopic eyes and 90.1±12.1 µm in fellow eyes. Another study was conducted to find choroidal and RNFL thickness in adults with anisometropic amblyopia by Aylin et al.19 No significant difference in peripapillary RNFL thickness was found between amblyopic and fellow or control eyes. The results of the present study indicate that RNFL thickness does not differ between amblyopic and fellow eyes across all types of amblyopia. Another study was conducted on 150 participants with myopia, hyperopia, or emmetropia using the OCT. The participants were 15-30 years old, were free from ocular disease, and had not undergone any surgery. The ANOVA revealed that the difference
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjEyMDQ0Nw==