Purchase this article with an account.
Xiao Li, Michael Larsen, Inger Munch; Central retinal thickness and axial length in the Copenhagen Child Cohort 2000 study: data from 432 11-year-old children. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(15):4036. doi: https://doi.org/.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
To investigate central retinal thickness in relation to axial length.
The Copenhagen Child Cohort 2000 (CCC2000) is a population-based study where 1417 children have been examined with best corrected visual acuity, non-cycloplegic refraction, non-contact ocular biometry (IOL-master) and enhanced depth imaging spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (EDI-SD-OCT). Central retinal thickness (average thickness in the central 1000-μm diameter area) was calculated in 432 randomly selected children from the CCC2000 study. Scaling factors were as found in the instrument manufacturer's proprietary software.
Data from 432 children (199 boys; 233 girls) were analyzed. The mean age was 11.67 ± 0.33 years. All had a best corrected visual acuity of 50 letters on the ETDRS-chart or better and the mean axial length was 23.18 ± 0.76 mm. The mean spherical equivalent refraction was +0.12 ± 0.90 D. Mean central retinal thickness was 275.87 ± 19.03 μm. Boys had significantly longer eyes (0.42 mm, CI95 0.28 - 0.55 mm ; p < 0.001) and thicker central retinae (6.16 mm, CI95 2.59 - 9.72 μm ; p = 0.008) compared with girls (Student’s t-test analysis). Central retinal thickness increased 3.84 μm (CI95 0.88 - 8.23 μm ; p = 0.0019) per mm increase in axial length and was 4.55 μm (CI95 1.43 - 6.25 μm ; p < 0.0152) thicker in boys compared with girls in a multiple linear regression analysis including both sex and axial length. There was no significant interaction between sex and axial length.
Central retinal thickness increased with increasing axial length and was thicker in boys than in girls in this subset of 432 children from a Danish population-based cohort of 1417 Danish children. The results are sensitive to errors of axial magnification scaling factors, especially those that vary with axial length.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only