May 2004
Volume 45, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2004
Does ciliary body thickness correlate with refractive error and axial length?
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • C. Tello
    Glaucoma Assoc of New York, The NY Eye & Ear Infirmary, New York, NY
    Ophthalmology, New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY
  • C. Oliveira
    Glaucoma Assoc of New York, The NY Eye & Ear Infirmary, New York, NY
    Ophthalmology, New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY
  • J. Liebmann
    Ophthalmology, New York University, New York, NY
    Ophthalmology, Manhattan Eye, Ear and Throat Hospital, New York, NY
  • R. Ritch
    Glaucoma Assoc of New York, The NY Eye & Ear Infirmary, New York, NY
    Ophthalmology, New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  C. Tello, None; C. Oliveira, None; J. Liebmann, None; R. Ritch, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  none
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2004, Vol.45, 4454. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      C. Tello, C. Oliveira, J. Liebmann, R. Ritch; Does ciliary body thickness correlate with refractive error and axial length? . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004;45(13):4454.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: To assess a possible correlation between ciliary body thickness and refractive error. Methods: Ninety patients without history of intraocular surgery were enrolled in the study. A–scan was performed to measure the axial length and ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM) to measure the thickness of the ciliary body and of the wall of the eye (conjunctiva, sclera and ciliary body) at the scleral spur and at 2 and 3 mm posterior to it. UBM was performed by one of the observers (CO) at the temporal meridian of the eye. The two observers (CT and CO) independently obtained the UBM measurements and they were both masked to the data. Results: Mean patient age was 55.0 ± 15.1years. Mean spherical equivalent was – 1.41 ± 4.85 diopters. Interobserver reproducibility was good with CV of 1.1%, 3.3%, and 3.1 % for eye wall thickness at the scleral spur, 2 and 3 mm, respectively. And for ciliary body thickness at 2 and 3 mm posterior to the scleral spur CV was 8.0 and 11.4%, respectively. Refractive error correlated negatively with eye wall thickness at 2 and 3 mm posterior to the scleral spur (r = –0.57, P< 0.0001 and r = –0.38, P = 0.0002 for CT; r = –0.56 and r = –0.40, P< 0.0001 for CO), but not at this landmark (P> 0.05). There was a negative correlation between refractive error and ciliary body thickness at 2 and 3 mm (r = –0.63 and r = –0.46, P< 0.0001 for CT; r = –0.59 and r = –0.49, P< 0.0001 for CO). Axial length correlated positively with eye wall thickness at 2 and 3 mm (r = 0.64 and r = 0.41, P< 0.0001 for CT; r = 0.61, P< 0.0001 and r = 0.39, P = 0.0001 for CO). Axial length also correlated with ciliary body thickness at 2 and 3 mm posterior to the scleral spur (r = 0.69 and r = 0.49, P< 0.0001 for CT; r = 0.63 and r = 0.48, P< 0.0001 for CO). Conclusion: Ciliary body thickness at 2 and 3 mm posterior to the scleral spur and eye wall thickness at the same sites correlate negatively with refractive error and positively with axial length.

Keywords: imaging methods (CT, FA, ICG, MRI, OCT, RTA, SLO, ultrasound) • ciliary body • refractive error development 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×