PURPOSE: To determine variations in eye volume, surface area, and shape with refractive error in young children using a three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) model. METHODS: A subset of Singaporean Chinese boys enrolled in the population-based Strabismus, Amblyopia, and Refractive Error in Singapore (STARS) study underwent MRI using a 3-Tesla whole body scanner with a 32-channel head coil. Eye volume and surface area were measured. Eye shape was assessed qualitatively from the three-dimensional models and quantitatively by measurement of the longitudinal axial length (LAL), horizontal width, and vertical height along the cardinal axes. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-four eyes of 67 subjects (mean age, 77.9 ± 3.9 months) were analyzed. The mean spherical equivalent (SE) refraction was 0.65 ± 0.92 D (range, -2.31 to 4.13 D). More myopic SE was associated with larger surface area (-20.59 [-37.09 to -4.10] mm²/D; P = 0.01) but not volume. In age-height adjusted models, more myopic SE was associated with longer LAL (-1.94 [-2.47 to -1.41] mm/D; P < 0.001) and greater width (-1.12 [-1.26 to -0.99] mm/D; P < 0.001) but not height (0.64 [-2.55 to 3.82] mm/D; P = 0.70). In nonmyopic subjects, less hyperopic SE was associated with longer AL (-0.40 [-0.71 to -0.10] mm/D; P = 0.01), width (-0.59 [-0.84 to -0.34] mm/D; P < 0.001), and height (-0.40 [-0.64 to -0.17] mm/D; P = 0.001). In three-dimensional models, myopic eyes conformed to an axial elongation model with a prolate profile in the axial plane, whereas nonmyopic eyes showed global expansion. CONCLUSIONS: Eye surface area increases with myopia in young children. Eye shape is different in myopia, even in its early stages. Axial globe enlargement occurs in myopic eyes leading to a prolate shape, whereas nonmyopic eyes enlarge globally in length, width, and height.
PURPOSE: To determine variations in eye volume, surface area, and shape with refractive error in young children using a three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) model. METHODS: A subset of Singaporean Chinese boys enrolled in the population-based Strabismus, Amblyopia, and Refractive Error in Singapore (STARS) study underwent MRI using a 3-Tesla whole body scanner with a 32-channel head coil. Eye volume and surface area were measured. Eye shape was assessed qualitatively from the three-dimensional models and quantitatively by measurement of the longitudinal axial length (LAL), horizontal width, and vertical height along the cardinal axes. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-four eyes of 67 subjects (mean age, 77.9 ± 3.9 months) were analyzed. The mean spherical equivalent (SE) refraction was 0.65 ± 0.92 D (range, -2.31 to 4.13 D). More myopic SE was associated with larger surface area (-20.59 [-37.09 to -4.10] mm²/D; P = 0.01) but not volume. In age-height adjusted models, more myopic SE was associated with longer LAL (-1.94 [-2.47 to -1.41] mm/D; P < 0.001) and greater width (-1.12 [-1.26 to -0.99] mm/D; P < 0.001) but not height (0.64 [-2.55 to 3.82] mm/D; P = 0.70). In nonmyopic subjects, less hyperopic SE was associated with longer AL (-0.40 [-0.71 to -0.10] mm/D; P = 0.01), width (-0.59 [-0.84 to -0.34] mm/D; P < 0.001), and height (-0.40 [-0.64 to -0.17] mm/D; P = 0.001). In three-dimensional models, myopic eyes conformed to an axial elongation model with a prolate profile in the axial plane, whereas nonmyopic eyes showed global expansion. CONCLUSIONS: Eye surface area increases with myopia in young children. Eye shape is different in myopia, even in its early stages. Axial globe enlargement occurs in myopic eyes leading to a prolate shape, whereas nonmyopic eyes enlarge globally in length, width, and height.
Authors: Anthony N Kuo; Ryan P McNabb; Stephanie J Chiu; Mays A El-Dairi; Sina Farsiu; Cynthia A Toth; Joseph A Izatt Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2013-05-06 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Donald O Mutti; G Lynn Mitchell; Loraine T Sinnott; Lisa A Jones-Jordan; Melvin L Moeschberger; Susan A Cotter; Robert N Kleinstein; Ruth E Manny; J Daniel Twelker; Karla Zadnik Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Ching-Yu Cheng; Maria Schache; M Kamran Ikram; Terri L Young; Jeremy A Guggenheim; Veronique Vitart; Stuart MacGregor; Virginie J M Verhoeven; Veluchamy A Barathi; Jiemin Liao; Pirro G Hysi; Joan E Bailey-Wilson; Beate St Pourcain; John P Kemp; George McMahon; Nicholas J Timpson; David M Evans; Grant W Montgomery; Aniket Mishra; Ya Xing Wang; Jie Jin Wang; Elena Rochtchina; Ozren Polasek; Alan F Wright; Najaf Amin; Elisabeth M van Leeuwen; James F Wilson; Craig E Pennell; Cornelia M van Duijn; Paulus T V M de Jong; Johannes R Vingerling; Xin Zhou; Peng Chen; Ruoying Li; Wan-Ting Tay; Yingfeng Zheng; Merwyn Chew; Kathryn P Burdon; Jamie E Craig; Sudha K Iyengar; Robert P Igo; Jonathan H Lass; Emily Y Chew; Toomas Haller; Evelin Mihailov; Andres Metspalu; Juho Wedenoja; Claire L Simpson; Robert Wojciechowski; René Höhn; Alireza Mirshahi; Tanja Zeller; Norbert Pfeiffer; Karl J Lackner; Thomas Bettecken; Thomas Meitinger; Konrad Oexle; Mario Pirastu; Laura Portas; Abhishek Nag; Katie M Williams; Ekaterina Yonova-Doing; Ronald Klein; Barbara E Klein; S Mohsen Hosseini; Andrew D Paterson; Kari-Matti Makela; Terho Lehtimaki; Mika Kahonen; Olli Raitakari; Nagahisa Yoshimura; Fumihiko Matsuda; Li Jia Chen; Chi Pui Pang; Shea Ping Yip; Maurice K H Yap; Akira Meguro; Nobuhisa Mizuki; Hidetoshi Inoko; Paul J Foster; Jing Hua Zhao; Eranga Vithana; E-Shyong Tai; Qiao Fan; Liang Xu; Harry Campbell; Brian Fleck; Igor Rudan; Tin Aung; Albert Hofman; André G Uitterlinden; Goran Bencic; Chiea-Chuen Khor; Hannah Forward; Olavi Pärssinen; Paul Mitchell; Fernando Rivadeneira; Alex W Hewitt; Cathy Williams; Ben A Oostra; Yik-Ying Teo; Christopher J Hammond; Dwight Stambolian; David A Mackey; Caroline C W Klaver; Tien-Yin Wong; Seang-Mei Saw; Paul N Baird Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2013-08-08 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Sean K Wang; Edward Korot; Moosa Zaidi; Marco H Ji; Ahmad Al-Moujahed; Natalia F Callaway; Jochen Kumm; Darius M Moshfeghi Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-03-18 Impact factor: 4.996