PURPOSE: To evaluate corneal curvature, pachymetry, and endothelial cell density (ECD) in Marfan syndrome (MFS). METHODS: A case-control study in which K values, pachymetry, and ECD were compared in 39 MFS eyes and 40 control eyes matched for age and refraction was conducted. MFS eyes with lens subluxation also were compared with eyes without subluxation. RESULTS: The mean K(med) value in MFS eyes was lower than in the control eyes, 42.2 ± 1.9 versus 43.4 ± 1.4 dioptres (D), respectively (p = 0.02). Fifteen MFS eyes (38%) and three control eyes (8%) had K(med) values below 41.5 D (p = 0.0012). MFS eyes had generally more corneal astigmatism than control eyes, 1.1 ± 0.9 versus 0.8 ± 0.4 D (p = 0.035), and MFS eyes with lens subluxation had more corneal astigmatism than those without, 1.6 ± 1.1 versus 0.6 ± 0.3 D (p = 0.0002). Nine MFS eyes with corneal astigmatism exceeding 1.5 D also had a subluxated lens. No eyes had keratoconus. The mean pachymetry value was lower in MFS eyes compared to the controls, 485 ± 54.5 versus 514 ± 37.3 μm (p = 0.007); 24 MFS eyes (62%) and 10 control eyes (25%) had measurements below 500 μm (p = 0.01). The mean ECD values were similar in MFS and control eyes, 2815 ± 430 versus 2858 ± 458 cells/mm(2) (p = 0.66). The mean K value, pachymetry, and ECD values did not differ between MFS eyes with and without lens subluxation. CONCLUSION: Decreased K values and pachymetry could indicate MFS regardless of subluxation. High corneal astigmatism is associated with subluxation in MFS. Subluxation should be identified in MFS eyes with high corneal astigmatism.
PURPOSE: To evaluate corneal curvature, pachymetry, and endothelial cell density (ECD) in Marfan syndrome (MFS). METHODS: A case-control study in which K values, pachymetry, and ECD were compared in 39 MFS eyes and 40 control eyes matched for age and refraction was conducted. MFS eyes with lens subluxation also were compared with eyes without subluxation. RESULTS: The mean K(med) value in MFS eyes was lower than in the control eyes, 42.2 ± 1.9 versus 43.4 ± 1.4 dioptres (D), respectively (p = 0.02). Fifteen MFS eyes (38%) and three control eyes (8%) had K(med) values below 41.5 D (p = 0.0012). MFS eyes had generally more corneal astigmatism than control eyes, 1.1 ± 0.9 versus 0.8 ± 0.4 D (p = 0.035), and MFS eyes with lens subluxation had more corneal astigmatism than those without, 1.6 ± 1.1 versus 0.6 ± 0.3 D (p = 0.0002). Nine MFS eyes with corneal astigmatism exceeding 1.5 D also had a subluxated lens. No eyes had keratoconus. The mean pachymetry value was lower in MFS eyes compared to the controls, 485 ± 54.5 versus 514 ± 37.3 μm (p = 0.007); 24 MFS eyes (62%) and 10 control eyes (25%) had measurements below 500 μm (p = 0.01). The mean ECD values were similar in MFS and control eyes, 2815 ± 430 versus 2858 ± 458 cells/mm(2) (p = 0.66). The mean K value, pachymetry, and ECD values did not differ between MFS eyes with and without lens subluxation. CONCLUSION: Decreased K values and pachymetry could indicate MFS regardless of subluxation. High corneal astigmatism is associated with subluxation in MFS. Subluxation should be identified in MFS eyes with high corneal astigmatism.
Authors: Michael Kinori; Sarah Wehrli; Iris S Kassem; Nathalie F Azar; Irene H Maumenee; Marilyn B Mets Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Ruchi Shah; Cynthia Amador; Kati Tormanen; Sean Ghiam; Mehrnoosh Saghizadeh; Vaithi Arumugaswami; Ashok Kumar; Andrei A Kramerov; Alexander V Ljubimov Journal: Exp Eye Res Date: 2021-01-21 Impact factor: 3.467
Authors: Tomas L White; Philip N Lewis; Robert D Young; Koji Kitazawa; Tsutomu Inatomi; Shigeru Kinoshita; Keith M Meek Journal: Exp Eye Res Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 3.467
Authors: Tomas L White; Philip Lewis; Sally Hayes; James Fergusson; James Bell; Luis Farinha; Nick S White; Lygia V Pereira; Keith M Meek Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Petra Gehle; Barbara Goergen; Daniel Pilger; Peter Ruokonen; Peter N Robinson; Daniel J Salchow Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-09-20 Impact factor: 3.240