4.4 Article

EFFECT OF SMOKING ON MACULAR FUNCTION AND STRUCTURE IN ACTIVE SMOKERS VERSUS PASSIVE SMOKERS

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000001632

关键词

central foveal thickness; subfoveal choroidal thickness; retinal response density; mf-ERG ring amplitude ratio; urinary cotinine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The aim is to study the effects of cigarette smoking on the structural and functional alterations of the macula in eyes of healthy young smokers. Methods: Cross-sectional clinical study included 100 active smokers (Group 1) and 100 age-and sex-matched healthy passive smokers (Group 2). All participants underwent a complete ophthalmologic assessment, axial length measurement, central corneal thickness measurement, spectral domain optical coherence tomography, and multifocal electroretinogram. Urine samples were collected to measure urinary levels of cotinine and creatinine with subsequent calculation of the cotinine creatinine ratio. Results: Central foveal thickness (255.62 +/- 17.23 and 264.75 +/- 17.35 mu m, respectively, with P = 0.0003) and subfoveal choroidal thickness (377.48 +/- 30.32 and 385.08 +/- 21.10 mu m, respectively, with P = 0.04) were significantly lower in active smokers than those of passive smokers. Retinal response density of ring 1 (31.08 +/- 2.29 and 33.46 +/- 3.83 nV/deg(2), respectively, with P < 0.001) and Ring 1 (R1) P1 amplitude (0.81 +/- 0.07 and 0.95 +/- 0.16 mV, respectively, with P < 0.001) were significantly lower, whereas R1 P1 latency (43.02 +/- 0.97 and 40.39 +/- 2.08 milliseconds, respectively, with P < 0.001) was significantly longer in active smokers than those of passive smokers. The mf-ERG ring ratios were significantly lower in the active smokers than those of passive smokers. Conclusion: In the absence of clinically apparent foveal toxicity, CFT, SFCT together with ring amplitude ratio could be used as good predictors of subclinical nicotine induced foveal changes.

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

4.4
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