4.6 Article

Central corneal thickness in Latinos

Journal

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
Volume 44, Issue 4, Pages 1508-1512

Publisher

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.02-0641

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NEI NIH HHS [U10 EY011753, P30 EY003040, EY11753, EY03040] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE. To characterize central corneal thickness (CCT) in Latinos aged 40 or more years. METHODS. A population-based cohort of Latinos from two census tracts in La Puente, California, underwent measurements of CCT and intraocular pressure (IOP). CCT was measured with an ultrasonic pachymeter, and IOP was measured by applanation tonometry. One eye of each of 1699 participants was included in the analyses. RESULTS. The mean (+/-SD) CCT was 546.9 +/- 33.5 mum. Older participants (greater than or equal to70 years) had significantly thinner CCs compared with participants 40 to 49 years of age (P < 0.05). Eyes with ocular hypertension had thicker CCs than did normal and glaucomatous eyes (P < 0.05). Multivariate adaptive regression spline analyses and analysis of variance contrasting IOP subgroups revealed that eyes with thinner CCs had lower IOP than did eyes with thicker CCs (P < 0.001). The absolute range of interocular differences in CCT in the same subject was as high as 24 mu m. CONCLUSIONS. On average, CCT in Latinos was less than that previously reported in whites but greater than that reported in African Americans and Asians. Older Latinos had thinner corneas compared with younger Latinos. Asymmetry in CCT of 25 mu m or more should be evaluated for potential corneal disease. Spline analyses suggest that although the relationship between IOP and CCT is best explained by a nonlinear equation, when measuring IOP with the Goldmann tonometer, it is likely that IOP is underestimated in eyes with thinner CCs and overestimated in eyes with thicker CCs.

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