Purchase this article with an account.
Dennis Shun Chiu Lam, King Sai Leung, Shaheeda Mohamed, Wai-man Chan, Mahesh Shanmugam Palanivelu, Carol Yim Lui Cheung, Emmy Yuen Mei Li, Ricky Yiu Kwong Lai, Christopher Kai-shun Leung; Regional Variations in the Relationship between Macular Thickness Measurements and Myopia. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2007;48(1):376-382. doi: https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.06-0426.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
purpose. To investigate the relationship between myopia and macular thickness, as measured by optical coherence tomography.
methods. A total of 143 normal subjects comprising 80 eyes with high myopia (spherical equivalent [SE] < −6.0 D), 37 eyes with low to moderate myopia (SE between −6.0 and −0.5 D), and 26 nonmyopic eyes (SE > −0.5 D) were analyzed in this cross-sectional study. Total average, foveal, and inner and outer average macular thicknesses measured by the StratusOCT (Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc., Dublin, CA) were compared among the three diagnostic groups. Associations between macular thickness and refractive error/axial length were evaluated by linear regression analysis.
results. The minimum foveal and average foveal (1-mm ring on the OCT retinal thickness map) thicknesses were significantly greater, and the outer ring macular (3–6-mm) thicknesses significantly lower in the high myopic eyes than in the low to moderate myopic and nonmyopic eyes. No significant difference was found in the inner ring (1–3-mm) macular thickness measurements among the groups. There was a positive correlation between the axial length and the average foveal thickness (r = 0.374, P < 0.001). Negative correlations were found between axial length and the average outer ring macular thickness (r= −0.471, P < 0.001) and total average macular thickness (r= −0.311, P < 0.001).
conclusions. Retinal thickness is related to refractive error/axial length in normal subjects with regional variations in correlation within the 6-mm macular region. Analysis of macular thickness in the evaluation of macular diseases and glaucoma should be interpreted only in the context of refractive errors and the location of measurement.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only