Ocular biometry characteristics and Specular count among patients attending eye OPD: Hospital based study:
Main Article Content
Keywords
Ocular biometric characteristics, cataract, specular microscopy, demographics
Abstract
Background: Cataract is the most common cause of blindness and the second major cause of visual impairment worldwide. Ocular biometric (axial length, anterior chamber depth and lens thickness) values are measured in everyday ophthalmological practice. This is mostly indicated in the preoperative evaluation of cataract surgery.
Aim: To determine the average value of ocular biometric parameters and specular count and to investigate their inter correlation among the patients attending eye OPD.
Methods: A profile of 350 participants was available during the study period and was conducted in Upgraded Department of Ophthalmology, Govt. Medical College Jammu from 1st November 2020 to 31st October 2021. Due approval from Institutional Ethics Committee of Govt. Medical College Jammu was taken prior to initiating the study. Anterior segment examination was done with the help of Slit lamp, detailed fundus examination and intraocular pressure was measured. Biometric parameters like axial length (AL), Anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), White to white (WTW), corneal diameter (K) and intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation was taken with Topcon (Aladdin HW3.0) optical biometer. Corneal endothelial count, central corneal thickness was measured using Topcon specular microscopy.
Results: The mean axial length in males (23.41±0.82 mm) was longer than females (22.95±0.89mm) and this difference was found to be statistically significant. The mean ACD was more for males (3.41±0.38 mm) than females (3.29±0.39 mm), this difference was found to be statistically significant. The mean lens thickness (LT) of the study participants was (4.01±0.42mm), was more for males (4.03±0.44mm) than females (4±0.49mm) but this difference was not found to be statistically significant. Mean white to white (WTW) corneal diameter was more in males (11.42±48mm) than females (11.17±0.49mm), this difference was found to be statistically significant. Mean endothelial density in males 2440±481 cells/mm² was more than female’s 2415±472.5 cells/mm², this difference was not found to be statistically significant.
Conclusion: In conclusion our study revealed that the mean values of most biometric parameters varied across age and sex distribution. Moreover, most of the parameters showed significant age-related changes among the study population.
References
2. Bhatt AB, Schefler AC, Feuer WJ, Yoo SH, Murray TG. Comparison of predictions made by the intraocular lens master and ultrasound biometry. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(7):929-33. doi: 10.1001/archopht.126.7.929 pmid: 18625938.
3. Abulafia A, Hill WE, Koch DD, Wang L, Barrett GD. Accuracy of the Barrett True-K formula for intraocular lens power prediction after laser in situ keratomileusis or photorefractive keratectomy for myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42(3):363-9. doi: 10.1016/j. jcrs.2015.11.039 pmid: 27006324.
4. Darcy K, Gunn D, Tavassoli S, Sparrow J, Kane JX. Assessment of the accuracy of new and updated intraocular lens power calculation formulas in 10 930 eyes from the UK National Health Service. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2020;46(1):2-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2019.08.014 pmid: 32050225.
5. Norrby S. Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34:368e376.
6. Hrebcova J, Skorkovska S, Vasku A. Comparison of contact and immersion techniques of ultrasound biometry in terms of target postoperative refraction. CeskSlovOftalmol. 2009;65:143e146.
7. R J, F M. The contact and immersion ultrasound methods compared using the ray tracing method. OpticaApplicata. 2010;XL:77e92.
8. Hoffmann PC, Hutz WW, Eckhardt HB, Heuring AH. Intraocular lens calculation and ultrasound biometry: immersion and contact procedures. KlinMonblAugenheilkd. 1998;213:161e165.
9. Qamar-ul-Islam SM. Comparison of central corneal thickness measurement using non-contact and contact pachymetry devices in normal eyes. Pak J Ophthalmol. 2015; 31 (1): 27-32.
10. Kanski J, Bowling B. Clinical Ophthalmology, 2016; Ed. 8th: p.168.
11. Baghdasaryan E, Huang X, Marion K, Tepelus T, Bagherinia H, Sadda S, et al. Reproducibility of Central Corneal Thickness Measurements in Normal Eyes Using the Zeiss Cirrus 5000 HD-OCT and Pentacam HR. Open Ophthalmol J. 2018; 12 (1): 72-83.
12. Erdur S, Demirci G, Dikkaya F, Kocabora M, Ozsutcu M. Comparison of Central Corneal Thickness with Ultrasound Pachymetry, Noncontact Specular Microscopy and Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography. SeminOphthalmol. 2018; 33 (6): 782-787.
13. Doughty MJ, Zaman ML. Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta-analysis approach. SurvOphthalmol. 2000; 44: 367-408.
14. Shafiq I, Hashmani S. Comparison Between Central Corneal Thickness Measurements Obtained with Orbscan II Topographer and Ultrasonic Pachymeter. Pak J Ophthalmol. 2007; 23: 87-90.
15. Faramarzi A, Ziai H. Central Corneal Thickness Measurement by Ultrasound versus Orbscan II. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2008; 3 (2): 83–86.
16. Akram S, Anklesaria ZH, Ahmad K. Correlation between Central Corneal Thickness Measurements Using Two Different Ultrasonic Pachymeters. Pak J Ophthalmol. 2013; 29: 214-216.
17. Khaja W, Grover S, Kelmenson A, Ferguson L, Sambhav K, Chalam K. Comparison of central corneal thickness: ultrasound pachymetry versus slit-lamp optical coherence tomography, specular microscopy, and Orbscan. ClinOphthalmol. 2015; 9: 1065-1070.
18. Gonzalez-Perez J, QueirugaPineiro J, Sanchez Garcia A, Gonzalez Meijome JM. Comparison of Central Corneal Thickness Measured by Standard Ultrasound Pachymetry, Corneal Topography, Tono-Pachymetry and Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography. Curr Eye Res. 2018; 43 (7): 866–872.
19. Fan R, Chan TC, Prakash G, Jhanji V. Applications of corneal topography and tomography: a review. ClinExpOphthalmol. 2018; 46 (2): 133-146.
20. Huang J, Lu W, Savini G, Chen H, Wang C, Yu X, et al. Comparison between a New Optical Biometry Device and an Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomographer for Measuring Central Corneal Thickness and Anterior Chamber Depth. J Ophthalmology, 2016: 6347236.
21. Jiang J, Ong K. Variability of central corneal thickness measurements-comparing Zeiss IOL Master and Tomey corneal specular microscope. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 2019; 8 (4): 275-279.
22. Wu Q, Duan X, Jiang Y, Qing G, Jiang B, Shi J. Normal value of the central corneal thickness measured by non-contact specular microscope. Yan KeXueBao. 2004; 20 (4): 229-232.
23. Gale RP, Saha N, Johnston RL. National biometry audit II. Eye (Lond). 2006;20:25e28.
24. Basic and Clinical Science Course, Section 3: American Academy of Ophthalmology 2011-2012; 211e223.
25. Elizah, comparison of ocular parameters of two biometry measurement devices in highly myopic eyes Int J ophthalmology 2019;12:1548-54.
26. NatungT, Shullai W, Nongrum B, Thangkhiew L, Baruah P, PhiamphuML. Ocular biometry characteristics and corneal astigmatism in cataract in cataract surgery candidates at tertiary care centre in North-East India. Indian J Ophthalmol 2019; 67:1417-23.
27. Lim LS, Saw SM, Jeganathan VS, Tay WT, Aung T, Tong Let al.Distribution and determinants of ocular biometric parameters in an Asian population: the Singapore Malay eye study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010;51(1):103-9.
28. Yoon JJ, Misra SL, McGhee CNJ, Patel DV. Demographics and ocular biometric characterstics of patients undergoing surgery in Auckland, New Zeland. ClinExpOphthalmol2016;44:106-13.
29. Jivrajka R, Shammas MC, Boenzi T, Swearingen M, Shammas HJ. Variability of axial length, anterior chamber depth and lens thickness in the cataractous eye, J Cataract Refract Surg 2008; 34(5):289-94.
30. Meng J, Wei L, He W, Qi J, Lu Y, Zhu X. Lens thickness and associated ocular biometric factors among cataract patients in Shanghai. Eye Vis (Lond) 2021;8(1):22.
31. Merriam JC, Zheng L. The relationship of corneal curvavature and axial length in adults.Investigative Ophthalmology and visual science.2005;46:864.
32. Fu T, Song YW, Chen ZQ, He JW, Qiao K, Sun XF et alOcularbiomertry in adult population in rural Central China: population based cross sectional study. Int J Ophthalmol 2015;8(6):812.
33. Mohammad-Salih PA. Corneal endothelial cell density and morphology in normal Malay eyes. Med J Malaysia 2011;66(4):300-3.
34. Kelekele JK, Kayembe DL, Mwanza JC. Profile of central corneal thickness and corneal endothelial cell morpho-density of in healthy Congolese eyes. BMC Ophthalmol 2021;21(1):185.
35. Galgauskas S, Juodkaite G, Tutkuviene J. Age-related changes in central corneal thickness in normal eyes among the adult Lithuanian population. ClinInterv Aging 2014;16;9:1145-51.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All articles published in JPTCP are licensed under Copyright Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Dr. SunitKour
MS, Department of Ophthalmology, Government medical college Jammu, India.
Dr. Sanjay Kai
Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, Government medical college Jammu, India
Dr. Ramandeep Singh
MD, Department of Medicine, SKIMS, Soura, Srinagar, India