KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Glokom Katarakt / 2020 / Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 4

Anterior Segment Parameters and Axial Length Value in Emmetropic Eyes in Different Age Groups

Ali KELES
Eren EKICI
Mehmet CITIRIK
Mustafa KOC
Mehmethan DOGAN
Suleyman Korhan KARAMAN
Sayfa
221–224
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Also, it was lower in Group 2 than Group 3 and 4 (p 61 than those of children aged<18 years.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Purpose: To determine and compare anterior segment parameters and axial length value in emmetropic eyes according to age groups.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Materials and Methods: In this study, 160 patients aged 7-73 years were divided into four groups according to age: Group 1 (7-18 years, n=33), Group 2 (19-44 years, n=39), Group 3 (45-60 years, n=60) and Group 4 (61-73 years, n=28).
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Also, it was lower in Group 2 than Group 3 and 4 (p 61 than those of children aged<18 years.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

Purpose: To determine and compare anterior segment parameters and axial length value in emmetropic eyes according to age groups. Materials and Methods: In this study, 160 patients aged 7-73 years were divided into four groups according to age: Group 1 (7-18 years, n=33), Group 2 (19-44 years, n=39), Group 3 (45-60 years, n=60) and Group 4 (61-73 years, n=28). Central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), and axial length (AL) measurements obtained by non-contact optical low coherence refractobiometry from 160 emmetropic eyes were analyzed. Results: Gender distribution, mean spherical equivalent and CCT values were comparable across groups (p=0.192, p=0.124 and p=0.638, respectively). Mean ACD was higher in Group 1 (3.80±0.24 mm) than Group 2 (3.57±0.29 mm), Group 3 (3.52±0.37 mm) and Group 4 (3.50±0.43 mm), (p=0.001). Mean LT was lower in Group 1 (3.41±0.25 mm) than Group 2 (3.72±0.31 mm), Group 3 (4.04±0.43 mm) and Group 4 (4.20±0.43 mm). Also, it was lower in Group 2 than Group 3 and 4 (p 61 than those of children aged<18 years.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

KELES, A., EKICI, E., CITIRIK, M., KOC, M., DOGAN, M., KARAMAN, S. K. (2020). Anterior Segment Parameters and Axial Length Value in Emmetropic Eyes in Different Age Groups. Glokom Katarakt, Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 4, 221–224. https://ajindex.com/articles/157142

Kaynakça (15)

  1. Midelfart A, Kinge B, Midelfart S, et al. Prevalence of refractive errors in young and middle-aged adults in Norway. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2002;80:501-5
  2. Brown NP, Koretz JF, Bron AJ. The development and maintenance of emmetropia. Eye (Lond). 1999;13:83-92
  3. Morgan IG, Rose KA, Ellwein LB. Is emmetropia the natural endpoint for human refractive development? An analysis of population-based data from the Refractive Error Study in Children (RESC). Acta Ophthalmol. 2010;88:877-84
  4. Flitcroft DI. Emmetropisation and the aetiology of refractive errors. Eye (Lond). 2014;28:169-79
  5. Foo VH, Verkicharla PK, Ikram MK, et al. Axial Length/ Corneal Radius of Curvature Ratio and Myopia in 3-Year- Old Children. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2016;5:5
  6. Zadnik K, Manny RE, Yu JA, et al. Ocular component data in schoolchildren as a function of age and gender. Optom Vis Sci. 2003;80:226-36
  7. Guzowski M, Wang JJ, Rochtchina E, et al. Five-year refractive changes in an older population: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:1364-70
  8. Li SM, Lin C, Wan Y, et al. Five-year refractive changes in a rural Chinese adult population and its related factors: the Handan Eye Study. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018;46:873-81
  9. Çınar Y, Cingü AK, Çınar T, et al. Comparison of anterior segment parameters with pentacam according to age in emmetropic eyes. Dicle Med J. 2013;40:627-31
  10. Yan PS, Lin HT, Wang QL, et al. Anterior segment variations with age and accommodation demonstrated by slitlampadapted optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology. 2010;117:2301-7
  11. Rüfer F, Schröder A, Bader C, et al. Age-related changes in central and peripheral corneal thickness: Determination of normal values with the Orbscan II topography system1. Cornea. 2007;26:1-5
  12. Aghaian E, Choe JE, Lin S, et al. Central corneal thickness of Caucasians, Chinese, Hispanics, Filipinos, African Americans, and Japanese in a glaucoma clinic. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:2211-9
  13. Hoffmann EM, Lamparter J, Mirshahi A, et al. Distribution of Central Corneal Thickness and its Association with Ocular Parameters in a Large Central European Cohort: The Gutenberg Health Study. PLoS One. 2013;8:e66158
  14. Tomidokoro A, Araie M, Iwase A. Corneal Thickness and Relating Factors in a Population-Based Study in Japan: The Tajimi Study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;144:152-4
  15. Richdale K, Bullimore MA, Sinnott LT, et al. The Effect of Age, Accommodation, and Refractive Error on the Adult Human Eye. Optom Vis