Refractive error and ocular biometry in Jordanian adults

Mallen, Edward A. H.; Gammoh, Yazan; Bdour, Muawyah; Sayegh, Fouad N.

doi:10.1111/j.1475-1313.2005.00306.x

Cited by 99 publications

(119 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

100

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…AL is commonly regarded as the most significant determinant of refractive error. 22 The key findings of other papers relating to AL and ACD can be seen in Table 2c; however, to our knowledge no paper has reported a significant correlation between AL and the magnitude of preoperative corneal astigmatism. In light of this, AL and corneal astigmatism should be assessed collectively preoperatively to decide the best method to correct astigmatism during cataract surgery with improved visual outcomes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Relationship between age, corneal astigmatism, and ocular dimensions with reference to astigmatism in eyes undergoing routine cataract surgery

Wakefield

Annoh

Nanavaty

2016

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To assess the relationship between age, corneal astigmatism, and ocular dimensions with reference to astigmatism correction during cataract surgery. Methods In this cross-sectional study of right eyes of 2247 consecutive patients attending cataract surgery preassessment, data on patient demographics, axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), and keratometric astigmatism were collected. Astigmatism was further analyzed as against-the-rule (ATR: steepest meridian 180 ± 30°), with-the-rule (WTR: 90 ± 30°), and oblique (OB: 30-60°or 120-150°). Results Mean age, AL, and ACD were 72.28 ± 13.84 years, 23.99 ± 1.85 mm and 3.08 ± 0.52 mm, respectively. In all, 20.4% eyes had ≤ 0.50 diopters (D), 55.2% had 0.51-1.50 D, 7.9% had 2.01-3.00 D, and 3.7% eyes had 43.00 D of astigmatism. Overall, 44.2% of eyes had corneal astigmatism 41.00 D. Average astigmatism in age ranges 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, 80-89, and 90+ years were 0.82, 1.04, 1.04, 1.02, 1.15 and 2.01 D, respectively. The magnitude of preoperative astigmatism positively correlated with age (Po0.0001), with increasing and decreasing prevalence of ATR and WTR astigmatism, respectively, with advancing age. The magnitude of ATR astigmatism inversely correlates to AL (Po0.0001). ATR astigmatism is more prevalent with increasing magnitude of astigmatism (Po0.0001). Conclusions A majority of patients for cataract surgery have astigmatism between 0.51 and 1.5 D. ATR astigmatism increases, whereas WTR decreases with age. ATR astigmatism inversely correlates to AL. With increasing age, the magnitude of astigmatism increases and ATR astigmatism becomes increasingly prevalent. The likelihood of a patient requiring astigmatic correction increases with age.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Relationship between age, corneal astigmatism, and ocular dimensions with reference to astigmatism in eyes undergoing routine cataract surgery

Wakefield

Annoh

Nanavaty

2016

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other countries show a similar trend of refractive error shifting towards more negative values during childhood, albeit with widely differing proportions of the population becoming myopic [5][6][7] . The major structural cause of myopia is an excessive axial elongation of the eye: On average, each diopter (D) of myopia in young adults is associated with an axial length increase of approximately 0.3-0.5 mm 8,9 . In a longitudinal study, Jones et al 10 observed that the childhood growth trajectory of eyes destined to become myopic differed from that of eyes destined to remain emmetropic.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Body Stature Growth Trajectories during Childhood and the Development of Myopia

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose-Stature at a particular age can be considered the cumulative result of growth during a number of preceding growth trajectory periods. We investigated whether height and weight growth trajectories from birth to age 10 years were related to refractive error at ages 11 and 15 years, and eye size at age 15 years. Design-Prospective analysis in a birth cohort.Participants-Children participating in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) United Kingdom birth cohort (minimum N=2,676).Methods-Growth trajectories between birth and 10 years were modeled from a series of height and weight measurements (N=6,815). Refractive error was assessed by non-cycloplegic autorefraction at ages 11 and 15 years (minimum N=4,737). Axial length and radius of corneal curvature were measured with an IOLmaster at age 15 years (minimum N=2,676). Growth trajectories, and an allelic score for 180 genetic variants associated with adult height, were tested for association with refractive error and eye size.Main outcome measures-Non-cycloplegic autorefraction at ages 11 and 15 years, and axial length and corneal curvature at age 15 years.Results-Height growth trajectory during the linear phase between 2.5-10 years was negatively associated with refractive error at 11 and 15 years (P<0.001), but explained <0.5% of inter-subject variation. Height and weight growth trajectories, especially shortly after birth, were positively associated with axial length and corneal curvature (P<0.001), predicting 1-5% of trait variation. Height growth after 2.5 years was not associated with corneal curvature, whilst the association with axial length continued up to 10 years. The height allelic score was associated with corneal curvature (P=0.03) but not with refractive error or axial length.Address for correspondence and requests for reprints: Dr Kate Northstone, Department of Social Medicine, Oakfield House, Oakfield Grove, Clifton, Bristol, BS8 1TQ, UK, Tel: +44 (0) Conclusions-Up to the age of 10 years, shared growth mechanisms contribute to scaling of eye and body size but minimally to the development of myopia.

show abstract

“…However, we found no significant difference in refractive error between good-responders and poor-responders (+0.41 ± 1.55 diopter vs. -0.25 ± 1.24 diopter, P = 0.157). Since axial length and refractive error are highly correlated [1,2], we may safely assume that there would be no significant difference in axial length between the two groups. Therefore, we do not think that a lack of axial length analysis should affect our finding.…”

Section: Dear Editormentioning

confidence: 99%