4.2 Article

In vivo measurements of cone photoreceptor spacing in myopic eyes from images obtained by an adaptive optics fundus camera

Journal

JAPANESE JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 51, Issue 6, Pages 456-461

Publisher

SPRINGER TOKYO
DOI: 10.1007/s10384-007-0477-7

Keywords

adaptive optics; myopia; photoreceptor

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To determine the cone spacing in normal and myopic eyes from the images obtained by an adaptive optics (AO) fundus camera. Methods: Nineteen eyes of 19 healthy volunteers with a mean +/- SD spherical equivalent refractive error of -3.7 +/- 3.3 diopters (D) (range, -0.3 to -11.1) and a mean axial length of 25.4 +/- 1.61 mm (range, 23.4-28.0 mm) were investigated in a prospective cross-sectional study. An AO fundus camera equipped with a liquid crystal phase modulator was used to obtain the images of the photoreptor mosaic. The spacing between the cones was calculated manually at a retinal locus 2 degrees temporal from the nter of the fovea. The magnification of the image was calculated by the axial length measured with an IOL Master. Results: The axial length was correlated with the refractive error (Pearson, r = -0.869; P < 0.001). The average cone spacing in the moderate- to high-myopia group (-6.5 +/- 2.3, n = 9) was 4.71 +/- 0.44 mu m, which was significantly greater (P = 0.002) than the 3.90 +/- 0.47 mu m in the normal and low-myopia groups (-1.1 +/- 0.9, n = 10). The cone spacing was significantly correlated with the axial length (r = 0.77, P < 0.001). Conclusions: The AO fundus camera is capable of acquiring images of the photoreptors in normal and myopic eyes. The greater spacing between cones in the myopia group is consistent with histological findings. These results suggest that retinal expansion should be considered in addition to Knapp's law when aniseikonia is evaluated in axial myopia. (C)Jpn J Ophthalmol 2007;51: 456-461 (c) Japanese Ophthalmological Society 2007.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available