4.4 Article

Relationship between intraocular pressure and eye growth in chick

期刊

OPHTHALMIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL OPTICS
卷 23, 期 1, 页码 25-33

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1475-1313.2003.00085.x

关键词

chick; eye growth; hyperopia; intraocular pressure; myopia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In infants, abnormally high intraocular pressure (IOP) results in excessive eye enlargement. In the study reported here, we investigated whether IOP might be a determinant of ocular elongation using the chick as an animal model. Specifically, we examined IOP changes in (I) normally developing eyes, and (II) eyes undergoing altered growth. In the first case (I), developmental changes in IOP, axial length and refractive error were assessed at approximately daily intervals during early development (days 2-11 post-hatch, n = 8), and at weekly intervals from weeks 1 to 6 (n = 8). In the second case (II), opposite ocular growth responses were elicited using -15 D and +15 D defocusing spectacle lenses fitted monocularly to 8-day-old chicks (n = 8 and 7, respectively). Treated eyes were measured 3 and 7 h after lens application (between 9 and 10 am), as well as 1, 2 and 4 days later, around the same time as the initial lens application. In normal development (I), IOP increased over the first post-hatch week, peaking at 18.0 +/- 5.1 mmHg, and declined slowly thereafter to be back to near 'hatching' values at 6 weeks (12.7 +/- 5.3 mmHg at day 2 cf. 13.4 +/- 1.9 mmHg). Eyes elongated at an approximately linear rate over the entire monitoring period. The -15 D and +15 D lenses (II) produced opposing effects on eye growth, as indicated by axial length changes of +0.67 +/- 0.25 mm cf. -0.33 +/- 0.17 mm over the 4-day treatment period. Both groups showed decreases in IOP over the first 20 h of lens wear. The faster growing eyes of the -15 D group exhibited a later relative increase in IOP. The described changes in IOP are compatible with, but do not prove, a modulatory influence of IOP on early eye growth.

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