4.7 Article

Corneal Aberrations and Thickness in Adults Born Small, Appropriate, or Large for Gestational Age at Term

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 23, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11236903

关键词

birth weight; small for gestational age; large for gestational age; corneal aberrations; corneal thickness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found an association between restricted prenatal growth and increased higher-order aberrations in adulthood.
Background/Aims: This study investigated whether there are changes in corneal surface regularity and corneal thickness in adults born small, appropriate, or large for gestational age at term. Methods: This retrospective cohort study involved prospective Scheimpflug imaging of the cornea (Pentacam (R)) to compare the corneal thickness and aberrations between adults classified as small for gestational age (SGA), normal birth weight (BW), and large for gestational age (LGA). Multivariable linear regression was applied to analyze associations with gestational age, BW percentile, placental insufficiency, preeclampsia, and breastfeeding. Results: In total, 448 eyes of 261 individuals born full term (aged 29.9 +/- 9.5 years, 140 females) were examined, including 29 severe SGA (BW < 3rd percentile), 32 moderate SGA (BW between 3rd and <10th percentile), 132 normal BW (BW between 10th and 90th percentile), 35 moderate LGA (BW between >90th and 97th percentile), and 33 severe LGA (BW > 97th percentile). There were no differences between groups in the corneal aberrations of the total cornea as well as of the corneal front surface, except for higher-order aberrations in the front of the cornea (p = 0.032). There was an association between the increased total root mean square of higher-order aberrations and lower birth weight percentile (p = 0.004), with increased higher-order aberrations correlating with lower visual acuity and spherical equivalent. Conclusion: Restricted prenatal growth is associated with increased higher-order aberrations in adulthood.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据