Acta ophthalmologica · 2021
Pupillary response in adults with Marfan syndrome and its effect on straylight.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sandvik Gunhild Falleth, Rand-Hendriksen Svend, Drolsum Liv, Kristianslund Olav
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The main objective of this study was to examine the pupillary response in patients with Marfan syndrome (MFS) and secondarily to determine whether changes in the pupillary response are associated with the increased disability glare previously shown in the same patient population.
METHODS: This study included 60 eyes of 34 patients with MFS diagnosed in accordance with the Ghent-2 criteria and 81 eyes of 44 controls. Pupillary response was measured with a pupillograph and disability glare with a straylight meter.
RESULTS: The patients with MFS had a significantly smaller maximum pupil size than the control group, 4.87 (4.50-5.23) mm versus 5.58 (5.25-5.90) mm (p = 0.01). In addition, they exhibited slower contraction velocities (p = 0.03) and longer re-dilation times (p = 0.01) compared with the control group. The mean straylight value was higher in patients with MFS than controls, even when including pupillary parameters together with lens surgery, cataract, iris colour, axial length and corneal curvature as possible explanatory variables in the analysis. However, when including data from both groups, a significant negative correlation was seen between maximum pupillary diameter and straylight value (p = 0.01). The other pupillary parameters did not correlate with straylight.
CONCLUSION: Patients with MFS had a smaller maximum pupil diameter, slower pupillary contraction and longer re-dilation time than the controls. Despite the correlation between pupil size and straylight value, the pupillary response demonstrated in MFS eyes could not explain the increased straylight in these patients.
METHODS: This study included 60 eyes of 34 patients with MFS diagnosed in accordance with the Ghent-2 criteria and 81 eyes of 44 controls. Pupillary response was measured with a pupillograph and disability glare with a straylight meter.
RESULTS: The patients with MFS had a significantly smaller maximum pupil size than the control group, 4.87 (4.50-5.23) mm versus 5.58 (5.25-5.90) mm (p = 0.01). In addition, they exhibited slower contraction velocities (p = 0.03) and longer re-dilation times (p = 0.01) compared with the control group. The mean straylight value was higher in patients with MFS than controls, even when including pupillary parameters together with lens surgery, cataract, iris colour, axial length and corneal curvature as possible explanatory variables in the analysis. However, when including data from both groups, a significant negative correlation was seen between maximum pupillary diameter and straylight value (p = 0.01). The other pupillary parameters did not correlate with straylight.
CONCLUSION: Patients with MFS had a smaller maximum pupil diameter, slower pupillary contraction and longer re-dilation time than the controls. Despite the correlation between pupil size and straylight value, the pupillary response demonstrated in MFS eyes could not explain the increased straylight in these patients.