4.6 Article

Objective Evaluation of Corneal and Lens Clarity in Children With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 179, Issue -, Pages 190-197

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2017.05.010

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To investigate whether abnormal glucose metabolism and duration of diabetes mellitus (DM) affected the corneal and lens clarity in children with well-controlled type 1 DM and to compare the results obtained with those in healthy children. DESIGN: Cross-sectional prospective study. METHODS: This multicenter study enrolled 56 patients with DM and 51 control subjects. The duration of DM and the glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels of the patients in the DM group were recorded. The Pentacam HR imaging system was used for corneal densitometry (12-mm corneal diameter) measurements. Furthermore, the lens densitometry and lens thickness (LT) measurements were performed after dilation of the pupils, using the same Pentacam HR device. RESULTS: The corneal densitometry values were similar in all concentric zones and layers in both groups (P>.05, for all). The mean values of the average and maximum lens densitometry measurements of the 2 groups, as well as the mean LT values, were statistically significantly different (P=.021, P=.011, and P<.001, respectively). There were statistically significant correlations between the lens densitometry values and the duration of DM (P<.05, for all). Conversely, no statistically significant relationship was found between the lens densitometry values and HbA1c levels (r=0.743; P=.084). CONCLUSIONS: The children with type 1 DM had decreased lens clarity and increased LT, even in cases of well-controlled DM, without DR. It is reasonable to think that these changes might have been caused by the type 1 DM. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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