4.6 Article

In Vivo Confocal Microscopic Evidence of Keratopathy in Patients with Pseudoexfoliation Syndrome

Journal

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
Volume 52, Issue 3, Pages 1755-1761

Publisher

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.10-6098

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE. To measure the density of cells in different layers of the cornea and to determine Whether morphologic changes of the subbasal conical nerve plexus are present in eyes with the pseudoexfoliation (PEX) syndrome. METHODS. Twenty-seven patients with unilateral PEX syndrome and 27 normal controls were investigated. All eyes underwent corneal sensitivity measurements with an esthesiometer and in vivo confocal microscopic study. Densities of the epithelial, stromal, and endothelial cells were measured. The density and tortuosity of the subbasal corneal nerve plexus were also evaluated. RESULTS. Eyes with PEX syndrome had significantly lower cell densities in the basal epithelium (P = 0.003), anterior stroma (P = 0.007), intermediate stroma P = 0.009), posterior stroma (P = 0.012), and endothelium (P < 0.0001) than in the corresponding layers of normal eyes. PEX eyes also had lower subbasal nerve densities and greater tortuosity of the nerves than normal eyes. Fellow eyes of patients with PEX also had significantly lower densities of the basal epithelial and endothelial cells than the normal eyes. Conical sensitivity was significantly decreased in PEX eyes, and this was significantly correlated with the decrease of basal epithelial cell and subbasal nerve densities. CONCLUSIONS. These results have shed light on understanding of the pathogenesis of decreased corneal sensitivity in eyes with PEX syndrome. PEX syndrome is probably a binocular condition for which keratopathy of the fellow eye also requires observation. (Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:1799-1761) DOI:10.1167/iovs.10-6098

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