Cetin Akpolat, Alper Halil Bayat, Muhammed Mustafa Kurt

Comparison of pupillometry measurements in myopic, emmetropic and hyperopic children

To compare spherical and cylindrical equivalent, and pupillometry measurements between non-amblyopic myopic, emmetropic, and hyperopic children. The study was conducted prospectively and cross-sectionally in a single-centered eye clinic. Three non-amblyopic groups were included in the study: myopic (Myopia Group), emmetropic (Emmetropia Group), and hyperopic (Hyperopia Group) children. The groups were compared in terms of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), spherical equivalent (SE), and pupillometry measurements, including minimum dynamic pupillometry, maximum dynamic pupillometry, mesopic pupillometry, and photopic pupillometry. The correlation analysis was also performed between the measurements. We noted significant differences in mean SE values between the three groups and between the paired groups (p0.05 for all). The hyperopia group had the lowest mean minimum dynamic pupillometry, maximum dynamic pupillometry, mesopic pupillometry, and photopic pupillometry values (1.97±0.57, 5.23±051, 4.96±0.41, and 3.30±0.54, respectively). We found significant differences in all pupillometry measurements between the three groups (p0.05 for all). We also did not observe any correlation between the pupil diameter and age or gender (p>0.05 for both). Our study might be unique regarding the comparison of pupillometry measurements in non-amblyopic children with refractive errors. Myopia in the pediatric population may have potential pupillometric effects when compared to emmetropia and hyperopia. This should be considered in terms of the clinical relevance of pediatric refractive examination under different illumination conditions.

PDF

___

1. Hofstetter HW, Griffin JR, Berman MS, et al. Dictionary of visual sciences and related clinical terms. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000;p. 171.
2. Hofstetter HW, Griffin JR, Berman MS, et al. Dictionary of visual sciences and related clinical terms. Butterworth-Heinemann. 2000:18.
3. Merbs SL, Nathans J. Absorption spectra of human cone pigments. Nature. 1992;356:433-5.
4. Hattar S, Lucas RJ, Mrosovsky N, et al. Melanopsin and rod-cone photoreceptive systems account for all major accessory visual functions in mice. Nature. 2003;424:76-81.
5. Güler AD, Ecker JL, Lall GS, et al. Melanopsin cells are the principal conduits for rod-cone input to non-image-forming vision. Nature. 2008; 453:102-5.
6. La Morgia C, Ross-Cisneros FN, Hannibal J, et al. Melanopsin-expressing retinal ganglion cells: implications for human diseases. Vision Res. 2011; 51:296-302.
7. Rukmini AV, Milea D, Baskaran M, et al. Pupillary responses to highirradiance blue light correlate with glaucoma severity. Ophthalmology. 2015;122:1777-85.
8. Maynard ML, Zele AJ, Feigl B. Melanopsin-mediated post-illumination pupil response in early age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015;56:6906-13.
9. Tsika C, Crippa SV, Kawasaki A. Differential monocular vs. binocular pupil responses from melanopsin-based photoreception in patients with anterior ischemic optic neuropathy. Sci Rep. 2015;5:10780.
10. Chibel R, Sher I, Ner DB, et al. Pupillometer for objective perimetry and diagnosis of patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Ophthalmology. 2016; 123:1898-911.
11. Akpolat C, Kurt MM, Evliyaoglu F, et al. Pupil diameter study: Factors effecting pupil size in diabetic patients. J Retina-Vitreous. 2019;28:117-121.
12. Abbott KS, Queener HM, Ostrin LA. The ipRGC-driven pupil response with light exposure, refractive error, and sleep. Optom Vis Sci. 2018; 95:323-31.
13. Najjar RP, Sharma S, Atalay E, et al. Pupillary responses to full-field chromatic stimuli are reduced in patients with early-stage primary openangle glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2018;125:1362-71.
14. Guillon M, Dumbleton K, Theodoratos P, et al. The Effects of age, refractive status, and luminance on pupil size. Optom Vis Sci. 2016;93:1093-100.
15. Pan CW, Zheng YF, Anuar AR, et al. Prevalence of refractive errors in a multiethnic Asian population: the Singapore epidemiology of eye disease study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:2590-8.
16. Yoo YC, Kim JM, Park KH, et al; Namil Study Group, Korean Glaucoma Society. Refractive errors in a rural Korean adult population: the Namil Study. Eye (Lond). 2013;27:1368-75.
17. Okutucu S, Civelekler M, Aparci M, et al. Computerized dynamic pupillometry indices mirrors the heart rate variability parameters. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2016;20:2099-105.
18. Jackson KG, Malphrus EL, Blum E, et al. Pupillometric assessment of dysautonomia in pediatric bowel and bladder dysfunction: A pilot study. J Pediatr Urol. 2019;15:226.e1-226.e5.
19. Uozato H, Guyton DL. Centering corneal surgical procedures. Am J Ophthalmol. 1987;103:264–75.
20. Rukmini AV, Chew MC, Finkelstein MT, et al. Effects of low and moderate refractive errors on chromatic pupillometry. Sci Rep. 2019;9:4945.
21. Pop M, Payette Y. Risk factors for night vision disturbances after LASIK for myopia. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:3–10.
22. Rosen E. The pupil and refractive surgery. In: Essential in Ophthalmology, Cataract and Refractive Surgery. Verlag Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2005; pp. 289–302.
23. Cakmak HB, Cagil N, Simavli H, et al. Refractive error may influence mesopic pupil size. Curr Eye Res. 2010;35:130-6.
24. Winn B, Whitaker D, Elliott DB, et al. Factors affecting light-adapted pupil size in normal human subjects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1994;35:1132–7.
25. Netto MV, Ambrósio R Jr, Wilson SE. Pupil size in refractive surgery candidates. J Refract Surg. 2004;20:337–42.
26. Cakmak HB, Cagil N, Simavli H, et al. Corneal white-to-white distance and mesopic pupil diameter. Int J Ophthalmol. 2012;5:505-9.
27. Bitirgen G, Daraghma M, Ozkagnici A. Evaluation of pupillary light reflex in amblyopic eyes using dynamic pupillometry. Turk J Ophthalmol. 2019 31;49:310-4.
28. Yetkin E, Tekin K, Kiziltoprak H, et al. Evaluation of static and dynamic pupil characteristics in hyperopic anisometropic amblyopia. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2019;29:486-93.
29. Yin G, Wang YX, Zheng ZY, et al; Beijing Eye Study Group. Ocular axial length and its associations in Chinese: the Beijing Eye Study. PLoS One. 2012;7:e43172.
30. Jones R. Do women and myopes have larger pupils? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1990;31:1413-5.
31. Salmon TO, West RW, Gasser W, et al. Measurement of refractive errors in young myopes using the COAS Shack-Hartmann aberrometer. Optom Vis Sci. 2003;80:6-14.
32. Wilson MH, Edsell M, Imray C, et al. Birmingham Medical Research Expeditionary Society. Changes in pupil dynamics at high altitude—An observational study using a handheld pupillometer. High Alt Med Biol. 2008;9:319–25.