Mallory K Kuchem1, Loraine T Sinnott, Chiu-Yen Kao, Melissa D Bailey. 1. *OD, MS †PhD ‡OD, PhD, FAAO The Ohio State University College of Optometry (MKK, LTS, MDB), Columbus, Ohio; Department of Ophthalmology (MKK), University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kansas; and Department of Mathematical Sciences (C-YK), Claremont McKenna College, Claremont, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships between ciliary muscle thickness (CMT), refractive error, and axial length both across subjects and between the more and less myopic eyes of adults with anisometropia. METHODS: Both eyes of 29 adult subjects with at least 1.00 D of anisometropia were measured. Ciliary muscle thickness was measured at the maximum thickness (CMTMAX) and at 1.0 (CMT1), 2.0 (CMT2), and 3.0 mm (CMT3) posterior to the scleral spur, and also at the apical region (Apical CMTMAX = CMTMAX - CMT2, and Apical CMT1 = CMT1 - CMT2). Multilevel regression models were used to determine the relationship between the various CMT measures and cycloplegic refractive error or axial length, and to assess whether there are CMT differences between the more and less myopic eyes of an anisometropic adult. RESULTS: CMTMAX, CMT1, CMT2, and CMT3 were negatively associated with mean refractive error (all p ≤ 0.03), and the strongest association was in the posterior region (CMT2 and CMT3). Apical CMTMAX and Apical CMT1, however, were positively associated with mean refractive error (both p < 0.0001) across subjects. Within a subject, i.e., comparing the two anisometropic eyes, there was no statistically significant difference in CMT in any region. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to previous studies, across anisometropic subjects, a thicker posterior region of the ciliary muscle (CMT2 and CMT3) was associated with increased myopic refractive error. Conversely, shorter, more hyperopic eyes tended to have thicker anterior, apical fiber portions of their ciliary muscle (Apical CMTMAX and Apical CMT1). There was no difference between the two eyes for any CMT measurement, indicating that in anisometropia, an eye can grow longer and more myopic than its fellow eye without resulting in an increase in CMT.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships between ciliary muscle thickness (CMT), refractive error, and axial length both across subjects and between the more and less myopic eyes of adults with anisometropia. METHODS: Both eyes of 29 adult subjects with at least 1.00 D of anisometropia were measured. Ciliary muscle thickness was measured at the maximum thickness (CMTMAX) and at 1.0 (CMT1), 2.0 (CMT2), and 3.0 mm (CMT3) posterior to the scleral spur, and also at the apical region (Apical CMTMAX = CMTMAX - CMT2, and Apical CMT1 = CMT1 - CMT2). Multilevel regression models were used to determine the relationship between the various CMT measures and cycloplegic refractive error or axial length, and to assess whether there are CMT differences between the more and less myopic eyes of an anisometropic adult. RESULTS: CMTMAX, CMT1, CMT2, and CMT3 were negatively associated with mean refractive error (all p ≤ 0.03), and the strongest association was in the posterior region (CMT2 and CMT3). Apical CMTMAX and Apical CMT1, however, were positively associated with mean refractive error (both p < 0.0001) across subjects. Within a subject, i.e., comparing the two anisometropic eyes, there was no statistically significant difference in CMT in any region. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to previous studies, across anisometropic subjects, a thicker posterior region of the ciliary muscle (CMT2 and CMT3) was associated with increased myopic refractive error. Conversely, shorter, more hyperopic eyes tended to have thicker anterior, apical fiber portions of their ciliary muscle (Apical CMTMAX and Apical CMT1). There was no difference between the two eyes for any CMT measurement, indicating that in anisometropia, an eye can grow longer and more myopic than its fellow eye without resulting in an increase in CMT.
Authors: Donald O Mutti; G Lynn Mitchell; Melvin L Moeschberger; Lisa A Jones; Karla Zadnik Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Donald O Mutti; Jane Gwiazda; Thomas T Norton; Earl L Smith; Frank Schaeffel; Chi-ho To Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Xiaobin Xie; William Sultan; Giulia Corradetti; Jong Yeon Lee; Abe Song; Anmol Pardeshi; Fei Yu; Vikas Chopra; Srinivas R Sadda; Benjamin Y Xu; Alex S Huang Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2021-02-25 Impact factor: 3.775