4.6 Article

Effect of Cataract in Evaluation of Macular Pigment Optical Density by Autofluorescence Spectrometry

Journal

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
Volume 52, Issue 2, Pages 927-932

Publisher

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.10-5664

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Bausch & Lomb Japan, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [21592229, 22591942] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE. To assess the effect of cataract on the evaluation of macular pigment optical density (MPOD) in aged patients. METHODS. MPOD was prospectively measured using autofluorescence spectrometry before and after cataract surgery. The Lens Opacities Classification System III was used to grade the cataracts at baseline. RESULTS. Forty-five eyes of 41 subjects, who had no ocular disorders or fundus autofluorescence abnormalities except for age-related nuclear cataract, were included. Preoperative MPOD was 0.350 +/- 0.117 density unit (DU). Regression analysis showed that a higher nuclear color score correlated with lower MPOD (t = -2.90, P = 0.0063). The preoperative MPOD prediction formula was MPOD = 0.545 - 0.069 X nuclear color score. A higher nuclear color score correlated significantly with failure to measure the MPOD (chi(2) = 5.08, P = 0.0242). The mean postoperative MPOD was 0.600 DU (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.562-0.637), which was significantly (P < 0.0001) higher than the preoperative level of 0.350 DU (95% CI, 0.313-0.388). Regression analysis showed that higher preoperative MPOD correlated with higher postoperative MPOD (t = 2.91, P = 0.0061). CONCLUSIONS. Cataract, especially its nuclear component, affects MPOD measured by autofluorescence spectrometry. Care should be taken when using this method in eyes with age-related macular maculopathy and age-related macular degeneration and in older patients who may develop these diseases. (Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:927-932) DOI:10.1167/iovs.10-5664

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available