| Literature DB >> 30627812 |
Nan Wei1, Xuehan Qian1, Hua Bi2, Xiaoli Qi1, Hongyu Lu3, Lirong Wei4, Xue Li1, Fengyuan Sun5, Bin Zhang6.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To delineate the development of the interepicanthal fold distance (IEFD) to interpupillary distance (IPD) in Chinese children, and to quantify how their ratio (EFDPD ratio) affects parent's judgment on whether a child's two eyes appear misaligned.Entities:
Keywords: Chinese children; EFDPD ratio; Epicanthus; Perception; Pseudoesotropia
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30627812 PMCID: PMC6420451 DOI: 10.1007/s00266-018-1298-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Aesthetic Plast Surg ISSN: 0364-216X Impact factor: 2.326
Number of children screened in each age-group
| Age (years) | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
|
| 236 | 1871 | 2362 | 2070 | 937 | 1067 | 1096 | 1049 | 1015 | 1047 | 890 | 1018 | 986 | 1017 | 927 |
Fig. 1Experimental methods. a An exemplary SPOT™ Vision Screener screen data. b The calculation of the EFDPD ratio. c The random stimuli method used to measure parents’ perception of eyes with varying EFDPD ratios. For each photograph, parents answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the question whether the child’s two eyes appear misaligned
IPD, IEFD, and EFDPD ratios for normal children aged between 3 and 17 years
| Age | IPD | IEFD | EFDPD ratio | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Value |
| Value |
| Value | |
| 3 | 189 | 52.27 ± 3.15 | 50 | 33.09 ± 1.67 | 50 | 0.6305 ± 0.0266 |
| 4 | 200 | 53.13 ± 3.10 | 50 | 33.69 ± 1.74 | 50 | 0.6326 ± 0.0288 |
| 5 | 200 | 55.42 ± 3.01 | 50 | 34.77 ± 1.70 | 50 | 0.6300 ± 0.0272 |
| 6 | 200 | 56.66 ± 3.28 | 50 | 35.96 ± 2.12 | 50 | 0.6328 ± 0.0341 |
| 7 | 200 | 57.41 ± 3.03 | 50 | 35.53 ± 2.06 | 50 | 0.6227 ± 0.0323 |
| 8 | 200 | 58.70 ± 3.13 | 50 | 36.13 ± 2.24 | 50 | 0.6157 ± 0.0321 |
| 9 | 200 | 58.93 ± 3.06 | 50 | 35.87 ± 2.15 | 50 | 0.6132 ± 0.0321 |
| 10 | 200 | 60.14 ± 3.23 | 50 | 36.12 ± 1.82 | 50 | 0.6049 ± 0.0296 |
| 11 | 200 | 61.48 ± 3.35 | 50 | 37.18 ± 1.85 | 50 | 0.6077 ± 0.0269 |
| 12 | 200 | 63.01 ± 3.45 | 50 | 37.87 ± 2.22 | 50 | 0.6020 ± 0.0305 |
| 13 | 200 | 63.75 ± 3.51 | 50 | 37.81 ± 1.93 | 50 | 0.5933 ± 0.0272 |
| 14 | 200 | 64.42 ± 3.51 | 50 | 38.20 ± 2.09 | 50 | 0.5955 ± 0.0281 |
| 15 | 189 | 64.95 ± 3.47 | 50 | 38.42 ± 2.13 | 50 | 0.5909 ± 0.0301 |
| 16 | 100 | 65.85 ± 3.80 | 50 | 39.19 ± 2.48 | 50 | 0.5949 ± 0.0327 |
| 17 | 99 | 65.53 ± 3.20 | 50 | 38.61 ± 1.91 | 50 | 0.5880 ± 0.0241 |
Fig. 2Development of the IPD, IEFD, and EFDPD ratios in children aged between 3 and 17 years. a Fitting errors versus the order of polynomial for IPD (top panel), IEFD (middle panel), and EFDPD ratios (bottom panel). b Polynomial functions of the seventh order were fitted for the development of IPD (top panel) and IEFD (bottom panel). c Developmental trend of EFDPD ratio was fitted into a polynomial function of the seventh order (thin black line) and piece-wise linear regression (red lines). Solid red line indicated a slope significantly different from zero to dash line indicated a slope not significantly different from zero
Fig. 3Relationship between parental perception of ocular misalignment in children and EFDPD ratios. a Distribution of EFDPD ratios. b The percentage of children perceived to be misaligned eyes, based on the response from 200 parents, increased with EFDPD ratio. c The percentage of children with EFDPD ratios larger than 0.65 decreased with age