4.1 Article

High myopia associated with retinopathy of prematurity is primarily lenticular

期刊

JOURNAL OF AAPOS
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 121-128

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2004.12.018

关键词

-

资金

  1. NEI NIH HHS [EY 01792] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose. To determine which of the eye's refractive components are responsible for the high myopia in retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), as compared with highly myopic eyes in full-term patients. Methods. The study included 53 highly myopic eyes in 34 patients with a history of ROP, and 66 highly myopic eyes in 37 full-term patients. Measurements included refraction, keratometry, and A-scan values for axial length, lens thickness, lens position, anterior chamber depth, anterior segment depth, and lens power calculations. Comparisons were also made with published age-matched, full-term normal controls. Results. Refractions ranged from a spherical-equivalent of -5.0 to -20.75, and from -5.0 to -22.0 diopters in ROP and full-term eyes, respectively. For ROP eyes, increasing myopia was most associated with lens thickness,and lens power (P < 0.001), with lesser contributions from corneal steepness, axial length, and a more forward position of the lens's center. For the eyes with myopia in full-term patients, increasing myopia was highly associated with axial length (P < 0.001), with smaller contributions from increased lens thickness and lens power. ROP eyes had a lens-thickness/anterior-chamber-depth ratio almost 50% higher than FT and normative eyes. Anterior segment depth was remarkably similar in all eyes studied. Conclusions. High myopia associated with ROP appears pathophysiologically distinct from high myopia in full-term patients. The increased lens thickness seen in ROP eyes was accompanied by shallower anterior chamber depth and maintenance of the anterior segment depth, similar to the normal neonatal eye, suggesting a mechanism of altered anterior segment development in ROP leading to high myopia.

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

4.1
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