Refraksiyon ile Merkezi Kornea Kalınlığı İlişkisi

Amaç: Farklı refraksiyon kusuruna sahip olguların merkezi kornea kalınlıklarının (MKK) karşılaştırılması.Material ve Metot: Çalışmaya kliniğimize başvuran yetmişbeş olgunun 150 gözü dahil edildi. Bu gözlerden 50’si emetrop, 50’si astigmatı 0.75 D altında olan miyop ve 50’si astigmatı 0.75 D altında olan hipermetrop idi. Sikloplejili ölçümler sonucunda elde edilen otorefraktometre değerlerine göre sferik ve astigmatik refraksiyon dereceleri belirlendi. MKK ultrasonik pakimetri ile ölçüldü. Miyop, hipermetrop ve emetrop gözler arasındaki MKK değerileri karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: Olguların yaş ortalaması 33.42±15.75yıl idi. 75 olgunun 40’ı kadın, 35’i erkek idi. Ortalama MKK değeri erkeklerde 563.43±36.46 μm, kadınlarda 556.40±36.22 μm idi. Ortalama MKK değeri miyop gözlerde 543.84±13.28 μm, hipermetrop gözlerde 545.28±11.53 μm, emetrop gözlerde 553.08±11.37 μm olarak tespit edildi. Emetrop gözler ile refraksiyon kusuru olan gözler karşılaştırıldığında ortalama kornea kalınlığı arasında istatiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulundu (P

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Refraksiyon kusuru, glokom, merkezi kornea kalınlıklarının

The relationship between refraction and central corneal thickness

Aim: To compare the central corneal thicknesses (CCT) of cases which have different refractive errors.Material and Methods: Hundred fifty eyes of 75 cases were included in this study. 50 of these eyes were emetropic, 50 of them were myopic which had astigmat below 0.75 D and 50 of them were hypermetropic which had astigmat below 0.75 D. We determined spheric and astigmatic refractive errors by otorefractometry which were obtained with cycloplegia. CCT was measured with ultrasonic pachymeter. CCT between myopic, hypermetropic and emetropic eyes had been compared.Results: Mean patient age was 33. 42±15,75 years. 40 of patients were female, 35 of patients were male. Mean CCT was 563.43±36.46 μm in female; 556.40±36.22 μm in male. Mean CCT was 543.84±13.28 μm in myopic eyes, 545.28±11.53 μm in hypermetropic eyes, 553,08±11,37 μm in emetropic eyes. CCT was significantly different in emetropic eyes and myopic/hypermetropic eyes (p

Keywords:

Refractive error, glaucoma, central corneal thicknesses,

PDF

___

Arıturk N: Glokomda Santral Korneal Kalınlık Ölçümü ve Önemi. Glokom- Katarakt. 1: 1-6, 2006.
Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD, et al: The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: Baseline Factors that Predict the Onset of Primer Open Angle Glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 120: 714-720, 2002.
Brandt JD, Beiser JA, Gordon MO, Kass MA: Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (OHTS) Group. Central Corneal Thickness and Measured IOP Response to Medication in the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study. Am J Ophthalmol. :717- 722, 2004. Hypotensive
Argus WA: Ocular hypertension and corneal Ophthalmology. 102:1810-12, 1995.
Foster PJ, Baasanhu J, Alsbirk PH, Munkhbayar D, Uranchimeg D, Johnson GJ: Central corneal thickness and intraocular pressure in a Mongolian population. Ophthalmology. 6: 969-73, Altinok A, Sen E, Yazici A, Aksakal FN, Oncul H, Koklu G: Factors influencing central corneal thickness in a Turkish population. Curr Eye Res. 5: 19, 2007.
Li P, Hu Y, Xu Q, Zhang G, Mai C: Central corneal thickness in adult Chinese. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog. Med Sci. 1:141-44, 2006.
Suzuki S, Suzuki Y, Iwase A, Araie M. thickness Corneal ophthalmologically normal Japanese population. Ophthalmology. 8:1327-36, Lekskul in an M
Nawanopparatskul B, et al: correlations between Central Corneal Thickness and age, gender, intraocular pressure and refractive error of aged 12- years old in rural Thai community. J Med Assoc Thai. 3: 175-9, 2005. P, The Esen E, Özdemir G, Özdemir N: Merkezi
Refraksiyon İlişkisi. Glokom-Katarakt. : 53-5, 2006. Kalınlığı ile Nomura H, Ando F, Niino N, Shimokata
H, Miyake Y: The relationship between intraocular pressure and refractive error adjusting for age and central corneal thickness. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. :41-5, 2004.
Tanaka HM, Mori ES, Maia N et al: Corneal thickness in high myopes. Invest Opthalmol Vis Sic. 37: 560, 1996.