James M Pope1, Farshid Sepehrband2, Marwan Suheimat3, Pavan K Verkicharla3, Sanjeev Kasthurirangan4, David A Atchison3. 1. Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. 2. Centre for Advanced Imaging, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 3. School of Optometry & Vision Science, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia 2Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. 4. Abbott Medical Optics, Inc., Milpitas, California, United States.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare lens dimensions and refractive index distributions in type 1 diabetes and age-matched control groups. METHODS: There were 17 participants with type 1 diabetes, consisting of two subgroups (7 young [23 ± 4 years] and 10 older [54 ± 4 years] participants), with 23 controls (13 young, 24 ± 4 years; 10 older, 55 ± 4 years). For each participant, one eye was tested with relaxed accommodation. A 3T clinical magnetic resonance imaging scanner was used to image the eye, employing a multiple spin echo (MSE) sequence to determine lens dimensions and refractive index profiles along the equatorial and axial directions. RESULTS: The diabetes group had significantly smaller lens equatorial diameters and larger lens axial thicknesses than the control group (diameter mean ± 95% confidence interval [CI]: diabetes group 8.65 ± 0.26 mm, control group 9.42 ± 0.18 mm; axial thickness: diabetes group 4.33 ± 0.30 mm, control group 3.80 ± 0.14 mm). These differences were also significant within each age group. The older group had significantly greater axial thickness than the young group (older group 4.35 ± 0.26 mm, young group 3.70 ± 0.25 mm). Center refractive indices of diabetes and control groups were not significantly different. There were some statistically significant differences between the refractive index fitting parameters of young and older groups, but not between diabetes and control groups of the same age. CONCLUSIONS: Smaller lens diameters occurred in the diabetes groups than in the age-matched control groups. Differences in refractive index distribution between persons with and without diabetes are too small to have important effects on instruments measuring axial thickness.
PURPOSE: To compare lens dimensions and refractive index distributions in type 1 diabetes and age-matched control groups. METHODS: There were 17 participants with type 1 diabetes, consisting of two subgroups (7 young [23 ± 4 years] and 10 older [54 ± 4 years] participants), with 23 controls (13 young, 24 ± 4 years; 10 older, 55 ± 4 years). For each participant, one eye was tested with relaxed accommodation. A 3T clinical magnetic resonance imaging scanner was used to image the eye, employing a multiple spin echo (MSE) sequence to determine lens dimensions and refractive index profiles along the equatorial and axial directions. RESULTS: The diabetes group had significantly smaller lens equatorial diameters and larger lens axial thicknesses than the control group (diameter mean ± 95% confidence interval [CI]: diabetes group 8.65 ± 0.26 mm, control group 9.42 ± 0.18 mm; axial thickness: diabetes group 4.33 ± 0.30 mm, control group 3.80 ± 0.14 mm). These differences were also significant within each age group. The older group had significantly greater axial thickness than the young group (older group 4.35 ± 0.26 mm, young group 3.70 ± 0.25 mm). Center refractive indices of diabetes and control groups were not significantly different. There were some statistically significant differences between the refractive index fitting parameters of young and older groups, but not between diabetes and control groups of the same age. CONCLUSIONS: Smaller lens diameters occurred in the diabetes groups than in the age-matched control groups. Differences in refractive index distribution between persons with and without diabetes are too small to have important effects on instruments measuring axial thickness.
Authors: Eric R Muir; Xingzheng Pan; Paul J Donaldson; Ehsan Vaghefi; Zhao Jiang; Caterina Sellitto; Thomas W White Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2020-05-05 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Adnan Khan; James M Pope; Pavan K Verkicharla; Marwan Suheimat; David A Atchison Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Alyssa L Lie; Xingzheng Pan; Thomas W White; Paul J Donaldson; Ehsan Vaghefi Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2020-07-28 Impact factor: 3.283