Comparison Between Ocular Biometric Parameters and Intraocular Pressure With and Without Contact Lenses

Noya-Padin, Veronica; Nores-Palmas, Noelia; Giraldez, Maria Jesus; Yebra-Pimentel, Eva; Pena-Verdeal, Hugo

doi:10.1097/icl.0000000000001030

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Objective refraction was performed using the Shin-Nippon NVISION-K 5001 (Rexxam Co., Kagawa, Japan) [28,29]. This device is an open-field autorefractometer, so the fixation target is external and located at a distance.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Associations between Ocular Biometry, Refractive Error, and Body Characteristics

Noya-Padin,

Nores-Palmas,

Garcia-Queiruga

et al. 2024

Photonics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Myopia is a refractive error widely spread throughout the world, usually related to excessive axial length (AL) of the eye. This elongation could have severe consequences, even leading to blindness. However, AL varies among subjects, and it may be correlated with other anthropometric parameters. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationships between AL, body height, refractive error, and sex. A total of 72 eyes of 36 myopic participants with a mean age of 11.1 ± 1.42 years (ranging from 8 to 14 years) were included in the study. Participants underwent objective refraction by NVision-K5001, AL measurement by Topcon MYAH biometer, and body height measurement. Significant correlations were observed between AL, body height, and spherical equivalent (SE) (Spearman’s correlation, all p ≤ 0.016). When participants were grouped by AL, significant differences were observed for body height and SE, and when grouped by height percentile, significant differences were observed for AL and SE (Kruskal–Wallis test, all p ≤ 0.006). There was a significant difference in SE, AL, and body height between genders (Mann–Whitney U test, all p ≤ 0.038). AL relates to the refractive state of the eye and is also influenced by individual anatomical characteristics.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The refractive power is measured in 0.12 D steps, and the cylindrical axis is measured in 1º increments. For the measurements, the vertex distance was always automatically set at 12 mm [28].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Associations between Ocular Biometry, Refractive Error, and Body Characteristics

Noya-Padin,

Nores-Palmas,

Garcia-Queiruga

et al. 2024

Photonics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A Lenstar LS900 (Haag-Streit, Köniz, Switzerland), based on optical low-coherence reflectometry, was used to obtain the CCT and ACD values [16,[39][40][41]. In all measurements, the instrument was set automatically; once the operator started the measurement, the device automatically averaged three consecutive measurements.…”

Section: Lenstar Ls900 Ocular Biometermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on the Ultrasound A principle, a US-800 biometry NIDEK EchoScan Ultrasound Model (Nidek Co., Tokyo, Japan) was used to obtain the ACD [8,9,40,41]; this device does not provide the CCT value as an independent parameter from the ACD. The device was used in contact mode, taking care to prevent cornea indentation.…”

Section: Echoscan Us-800 Ocular Biometermentioning

confidence: 99%

Agreement on Anterior Chamber Depth Measurement between Three Commercially Available Devices

Noya-Padin,

Pena-Verdeal,

Garcia-Queiruga

et al. 2024

Photonics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study aimed to assess the agreement of three commercially available devices on the measurement of anterior chamber depth (ACD) with and without compensation by central corneal thickness measurement (CCT). Fifty eyes were included in an observational cross-sectional study. Participants underwent a single visit during which devices were used to obtain the inclusion/exclusion (ARK510A, Canon TX-10) and studied (VX-120, Lenstar LS900 and EchoScan US-800) parameters. Based on invasiveness, tests were always performed in the same order by one researcher (to avoid inter-observer variability) and only in the right eye (to avoid overstating the precision of estimates) in each participant. The keratometry, autorefraction, intraocular pressure and anterior chamber angle values were used as inclusion criteria, while the CCT and ACD values were used in the agreement analysis between devices. There was a general and a paired difference in ACD measurements between devices (Greenhouse–Geisser: p ≤ 0.001; Sidak: all p ≤ 0.001). No significant difference was found in ACD measurements compensated by CCT values between the devices (Greenhouse–Geisser: p = 0.200). Pairwise analysis showed a significant difference in VX-120 vs. Lenstar (Sidak: p = 0.021). The differences in ACD measurements compensated by CCT values between the devices were clinically acceptable. Consequently, using these instruments interchangeably in daily routines based on this correction is justified.

show abstract

Temporal Variations in Convergence Insufficiency Symptomatic Status among University Students before and after COVID-19: A Longitudinal Analysis from 2018 to 2023

Pena-Verdeal,

Noya-Padin,

Garcia-Queiruga

et al. 2024

Life

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study aimed to assess the symptomatic status of Convergence Insufficiency (CI) in university students from 2018 to 2023 considering the educational environment pre- and post-COVID-19 pandemic confinements. A Convergence Insufficiency Symptom Survey (CISS) was conducted annually from 2018 to 2023, excluding 2020, in an initial group of 217 third-year Optics and Optometry degree university student participants. In the final group (178 participants), the statistical differences in CISS scores between years were analysed, both overall and by questionnaire subgroup, along with associations between CISS diagnostic categories before and after 2020. Significant differences were found between years in the subscale and total score analyses (Kruskal–Wallis, both p ≤ 0.049). Pairwise comparisons showed significant differences for the performance subgroup in 2021 vs. 2019 and 2018 (Mann–Whitney, both p ≤ 0.004), while in terms of the total score, there was a statistical difference in 2021 vs. 2018 (Mann–Whitney, p < 0.001). The distribution analysis indicated a significant difference between groups (Chi, p = 0.004), with participants from 2021 or later more likely to exhibit higher CISS scores (OR = 3.47, 95%CI 1.04–8.58). The present study shows significant temporal increments in symptomatic status related to CI among university students from 2018 to 2023, indicating a potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic educational landscape on these outcomes.

show abstract

Comparison Between Ocular Biometric Parameters and Intraocular Pressure With and Without Contact Lenses

Cited by 3 publications

References 39 publications

Associations between Ocular Biometry, Refractive Error, and Body Characteristics

Associations between Ocular Biometry, Refractive Error, and Body Characteristics

Agreement on Anterior Chamber Depth Measurement between Three Commercially Available Devices

Temporal Variations in Convergence Insufficiency Symptomatic Status among University Students before and after COVID-19: A Longitudinal Analysis from 2018 to 2023

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About