PURPOSE: To describe central corneal thickness among patients diagnosed with congenital aniridia. DESIGN: Prospective noninterventional case series. METHODS: We identified patients carrying the clinical diagnosis of congenital aniridia and performed complete ophthalmic examinations. Eyes with known corneal pathology were excluded. Central corneal thickness was determined as the mean of five measurements per eye, acquired by matching ultrasonic pachymeters at two clinical sites. RESULTS: Seventeen patients were identified at two sites; 32 eyes qualified for inclusion. The average central corneal thickness of the qualifying eyes was 631.6 +/- 50.8 microM. CONCLUSION: Markedly increased central corneal thickness appears to be a previously unrecognized aspect of congenital aniridia. This may lead to incorrect estimates of intraocular pressure by applanation techniques and highlights the importance of monitoring patients with aniridia for the development of glaucoma through regular gonioscopy and optic nerve examination.
PURPOSE: To describe central corneal thickness among patients diagnosed with congenital aniridia. DESIGN: Prospective noninterventional case series. METHODS: We identified patients carrying the clinical diagnosis of congenital aniridia and performed complete ophthalmic examinations. Eyes with known corneal pathology were excluded. Central corneal thickness was determined as the mean of five measurements per eye, acquired by matching ultrasonic pachymeters at two clinical sites. RESULTS: Seventeen patients were identified at two sites; 32 eyes qualified for inclusion. The average central corneal thickness of the qualifying eyes was 631.6 +/- 50.8 microM. CONCLUSION: Markedly increased central corneal thickness appears to be a previously unrecognized aspect of congenital aniridia. This may lead to incorrect estimates of intraocular pressure by applanation techniques and highlights the importance of monitoring patients with aniridia for the development of glaucoma through regular gonioscopy and optic nerve examination.
Authors: Yi Lu; David P Dimasi; Pirro G Hysi; Alex W Hewitt; Kathryn P Burdon; Tze'Yo Toh; Jonathan B Ruddle; Yi Ju Li; Paul Mitchell; Paul R Healey; Grant W Montgomery; Narelle Hansell; Timothy D Spector; Nicholas G Martin; Terri L Young; Christopher J Hammond; Stuart Macgregor; Jamie E Craig; David A Mackey Journal: PLoS Genet Date: 2010-05-13 Impact factor: 5.917
Authors: David P Dimasi; Kathryn P Burdon; Alex W Hewitt; Ravi Savarirayan; Paul R Healey; Paul Mitchell; David A Mackey; Jamie E Craig Journal: Mol Vis Date: 2010-03-31 Impact factor: 2.367
Authors: Caroline O Adeoti; Adebimpe A Afolabi; Adeyinka A Afolabi; Adeyinka O Ashaye; Adebimpe O Ashaye; Adenike O Adeoye Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2010-10-05
Authors: David P Dimasi; Jern Y Chen; Alex W Hewitt; Sonja Klebe; Richard Davey; John Stirling; Elizabeth Thompson; Robin Forbes; Tiong Y Tan; Ravi Savarirayan; David A Mackey; Paul R Healey; Paul Mitchell; Kathryn P Burdon; Jamie E Craig Journal: Hum Genet Date: 2009-08-28 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: David P Dimasi; Alex W Hewitt; Kenneth Kagame; Sam Ruvama; Ludovica Tindyebwa; Bastien Llamas; Kirsty A Kirk; Paul Mitchell; Kathryn P Burdon; Jamie E Craig Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-08-10 Impact factor: 3.240