Dark adaptation was measured in 27 participants with congenital aniridia and in 38 age-matched healthy controls. One of the healthy controls was excluded from the analysis because of unreliable responses caused by a fault with the response box during the testing procedure. One patient with aniridia was excluded from the analysis due to subsequently being diagnosed with dry age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Thus, 26 participants with aniridia (nine males; 11–66 years old; mean, 33.8 ± 16.5 years) and 37 healthy controls (14 males; 10–74 years old; mean, 32.8 ± 18.6 years), t(57.7) = −0.24, P = 0.81, were included in the analysis. All healthy control eyes had a best-corrected visual acuity of 0.10 logMAR or better and no history of systemic or ocular disease. The retina was unremarkable on clinical assessment. The participants with aniridia had a median best-corrected visual acuity of 0.80 logMAR (range, 0.00–1.76). Ten participants had AAK grade ≤ 1, 11 had AAK grade 2 and five had AAK grade 3. OCT images of sufficient image quality were obtained from 20 of the participants with aniridia, of whom 95% (19/20) had some grade of foveal hypoplasia (1–4).
Figure 2 presents dark-adaptation curves with the fitted models plotted as thresholds in log cd/m
2 versus time in minutes after bleach for four participants with aniridia from different age groups and four healthy age-matched controls. The fitted dark-adaptation functions for all participants are shown in
Supplementary Figures S1 and
S2. The TRCB varied between 6.5 and 19.7 minutes (mean, 11.4 ± 2.5) for healthy controls and were significantly longer for those 60 years and older compared with the younger age groups,
F(2) = 8.55,
P = 0.001. There was no significant association between the cone- or rod-mediated dark adaptation (cone threshold, TRCB, rod threshold) and sex or axial length.
Figure 3A shows that the TRCB in patients with aniridia (7.5–15.9 minutes; mean, 11.6 ± 2.3) was not different from that of the healthy controls,
t(51) = −0.25,
P = 0.80. In contrast, patients with aniridia showed larger variability and, on average, a significant elevation of both dark-adapted cone thresholds (−0.84 ± 0.66 and −1.56 ± 0.36 log cd/m
2 for aniridia and healthy controls, respectively),
t(35.6) = −5.1,
P < 0.0001 (
Fig. 3B), and rod thresholds compared with healthy age-matched controls (−3.50 ± 0.76 and −4.23 ± 0.34 log cd/m
2 for aniridia and healthy controls, respectively),
t(32.2) = −4.6,
P < 0.0001 (
Fig. 3C). However, some patients with aniridia retained thresholds within the normal range.
There was a statistically significant difference in cone thresholds between different grades of AAK, H(2) = 7.02, P = 0.03, where those with grade 3 AAK had significantly higher thresholds than those with grade 0 or 1 AAK (P = 0.014). Rod thresholds also tended to be higher with more severe grades of AAK, H(2) = 5.44, P = 0.07, but not significantly. We did not find a significant correlation between lens opacities and either cone threshold (rs = 0.43, P = 0.13) or rod threshold (rs = 0.39, P = 0.17) in the 14 patients with phakic aniridia. There was also no difference in thresholds among phakic, aphakic, and pseudophakic participants, H(2) = 1.01, P = 0.69 and H(2) = 1.20, P = 0.55 for dark-adapted cone and rod thresholds, respectively.
Measurements of the retinal layers were available in 20 of the patients (and all of the healthy controls). Five patients with stage 3 AAK, where the central cornea is affected, were excluded because of poor image quality. Thus, all of those included in the analysis of the relationship between the retinal structure and dark adaptation parameters had AAK grade ≤ 2.
In aniridia, there were no significant relationships between total retinal thickness or outer retinal thickness in the perifovea (1.5–3.0 mm retinal eccentricity) for either dark-adapted cone thresholds (
r = −0.27,
P = 0.26 and
r = −0.24,
P = 0.31, respectively) or dark-adapted rod thresholds (
r = −0.38,
P = 0.097 and
r = −0.29,
P = 0.22, respectively), although there was an association between thinner perifoveal retinal thickness and higher rod thresholds when including age as a factor (
P = 0.022). In contrast,
Figure 4 shows that the central outer retinal layer thickness correlated significantly in aniridia with both cone thresholds (
r = −0.49; 95% CI, −0.77 to −0.06;
P = 0.027) and rod thresholds (
r = −0.53; 95% CI, −0.79 to −0.11;
P = 0.017).
Based on these analyses, central outer retinal layer thickness, age, and AAK grade were included as independent variables in the multivariate regression model for prediction of dark-adapted cone thresholds. Perifoveal retinal thickness was included as an additional independent variable for prediction of dark-adapted rod thresholds. The best model prediction for both cone and rod thresholds in aniridia was when only age and central outer retinal layer thickness were included in the model, r2 = 0.38, F(2, 17) = 5.29, P = 0.016 and r2 = 0.45, F(2, 17) = 7.16, P = 0.006 for cone and rod threshold, respectively. Central outer retinal layer thickness significantly predicted the cone threshold (β = −0.011, P = 0.009) and rod threshold (β = −0.014, P = 0.004), as did age for the rod threshold (β = 0.019, P = 0.030), but was only near significance for cone threshold (β = 0.015, P = 0.06).