| | The Influence of Diabetes Mellitus Type 1 and 2 on the Thickness, Shape, and Equivalent Refractive Index of the Human Crystalline LensReceived 13 December 2007; received in revised form 17 March 2008; accepted 18 March 2008. published online 16 May 2008. PurposeTo study the influence of diabetes mellitus (DM) types 1 and 2 on the thickness, radius of curvature, equivalent refractive index, and power of the lens. DesignObservational cross-sectional study. Participants and ControlsOne hundred fourteen patients with DM type 1, 112 patients with DM type 2, and 75 control subjects. MethodsLens thickness and the anterior and posterior radius of the lens were measured by means of corrected Scheimpflug imaging. Ocular refraction was determined with Hartmann–Shack aberrometry. The equivalent refractive index and the power of the lens were calculated from these parameters. Several systemic parameters (e.g., duration of DM, glycated hemoglobin, and type of medication) and ocular comorbidity (e.g., level of diabetic retinopathy) were recorded. Main Outcome MeasuresThe thickness, anterior and posterior radii, equivalent refractive index, and power of the lens. ResultsThe lenses of the patients with DM type 1 were significantly thicker and more convex, compared with those of the control group (P<0.001). Furthermore, there was a significant decrease in the equivalent refractive index of their lenses compared with the control group. No difference in lens parameters was found between the patients with DM type 2 and the control group. In the DM type 1 group, the duration of DM was an important determinant of lens biometry; the independent effects of the duration of DM per year on lens thickness, anterior radius, posterior radius, and equivalent refractive index were respectively 95%, 88%, 207%, and 45% of the effect of age per year. Lens power and ocular refraction were not affected by DM types 1 or 2. ConclusionsThe results of the present study show that DM type 1 has a major impact on lens biometry. Furthermore, the difference in effect of DM types 1 and 2 on lens biometry may indicate a fundamental difference in pathogenesis. The decrease in equivalent refractive index of the lens seemed to compensate for the profound increase in lens convexity in patients with DM type 1, resulting in no significant change in lens power or ocular refraction with the duration of DM. Financial Disclosure(s)The authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article. Available online: May 16, 2008. The human lens continues to grow throughout life because of the addition of new lens fibers. As a result, the lens becomes thicker and more convex with age.1, 2 In patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), the lens has been found to become even thicker and more convex compared with that of healthy subjects.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 In patients with DM type 1, Sparrow et al5 found that the duration of DM is a powerful determinant of lens biometry. After correction for the effect of age, they reported that the independent effects of the duration of DM per year on lens thickness and curvature were, respectively, 68% and 88% of the effect of age per year. The normal increase in convexity of the lens with age could be expected to result in an increase in lens power, and thus a tendency toward myopia. Nevertheless, in the healthy eye no such tendency could be observed; it was even found that there was a hyperopic shift in refractive error.12, 13 This paradoxical occurrence of an increase in lens convexity with no myopic shift in ocular refractive error has been called the “lens paradox.”14 An explanation for this lens paradox was found in a decrease in the refractive index of the lens with age, which compensates for the more convex shape of the lens with age.2, 15, 16, 17, 18 As mentioned, the increase in convexity of the diabetic lens with the duration of DM has been reported to be very large. Nevertheless, as in healthy subjects, large myopic shifts with age have not been consistently observed in patients with DM. Fledelius19 reported a myopic shift in patients with DM compared with subjects with no DM. However, in the Beaver Dam Eye Study and in a study of a large rural South Indian population, a tendency toward hyperopia was found in patients with DM.20, 21 Furthermore, no influence of DM on ocular refraction was observed in the Blue Mountains Eye Study.22, 23 Therefore, the question that arises is whether the change in shape of the diabetic lens is perhaps smaller than previously reported, or that the large change in shape of the lens is compensated for by a decrease in the equivalent refractive index similar to that in the healthy eye. A decrease in the equivalent refractive index of the lens would prevent the diabetic eye from becoming more myopic with increasing age and duration of DM. To answer this question, an accurate measurement of the biometry of the lens is necessary to make it possible to calculate the equivalent refractive index of the lens. This measurement can be obtained with corrected Scheimpflug imaging,2, 24 in which the distortion from the refraction of the front and back surface of the cornea and the front surface of the lens is taken into account by individual ray tracing. The correction of Scheimpflug images has been shown to be important, because the refraction that occurs at the various ocular interfaces, and the distortion owing to the geometry of the Scheimpflug camera, produce a distorted image of the anterior eye segment.2, 24, 25, 26 Therefore, the aim of the present study was to measure lens biometry in subjects with DM types 1 and 2 by means of corrected Scheimpflug imaging to study the influence of DM on the thickness and shape of the lens. We also calculated the equivalent refractive index of the lens from the Scheimpflug parameters in combination with the equivalent refractive error and axial eye length measurements.1, 24 This, together with the calculation of the power of the lens, made it possible to investigate a compensation mechanism for the changes in lens biometry caused by DM. All lens parameters (thickness, anterior and posterior radii, equivalent refractive index, and power) were compared with those of control subjects. Finally, in the 2 DM groups we investigated the influence of several systemic factors, such as the duration of DM, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), capillary blood glucose levels, the level of diabetic retinopathy (DR), and the use of insulin, on lens biometry. Subjects and Methods  In this cross-sectional study, the right eye of a total of 301 subjects (75 control subjects, 114 patients with DM type 1, and 112 patients with DM type 2) was measured at the Department of Ophthalmology of the VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam. The diagnosis of DM type 1 or type 2 was established according to the guidelines issued by the World Health Organization.27 Participants with cataract, glaucoma, a history of intraocular surgery, or ocular pathology other than DR were excluded. Age, duration of DM, HbA1c levels, and type of medication were recorded. Capillary blood glucose levels were measured with a blood glucose analyzer (HemoCue Diagnostics BV, Oisterwijk, The Netherlands) before the ocular measurements were made. The Medical Ethics Committee of the VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam approved the protocol of the study, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants according to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Ocular Measurements The right eye of each participant was measured after the administration of 1.0% cyclopentolate and 5% phenylephrine eye drops to obtain maximal pupillary dilation and paralysis of accommodation. Images of the lens were obtained with a Topcon SL-45 Scheimpflug camera, equipped with a charge-coupled device camera (St-9XE, SBIG Astronomical Instruments; Santa Barbara, CA) with a range of 16 bits of grey values (512 × 512 pixels, pixel size 20 × 20 μm; original magnification, ×1). One series of 3 Scheimpflug images was made in the vertical (90-degree) meridian along the optical axis. Ray tracing was used to correct the images for distortion owing to the geometry of the Scheimpflug camera and the refraction of the different ocular surfaces. The method used to correct Scheimpflug images has been described in detail by Dubbelman et al.2 By combining the measurements of the corneal thickness, the depth of the anterior chamber (ACD), the anterior and posterior radii of the cornea, the lens thickness (d3), the anterior (R3) and posterior (R4) radii of the lens, the axial length of the eye, and the ocular refraction, it is possible to calculate the equivalent refractive index of the lens (nlens) by means of an iterative process.2, 24 The following formulas were applied to calculate the power (P) of the anterior and the posterior surface of the lens in diopters (D), with the refractive indices of the aqueous humor (n2), the lens (nlens), the vitreous (n4), and the radius of the anterior (R3), and the posterior (R4) surface of the lens: The lens power (P) was calculated with the Lensmaker equation, 28 with lens thickness ( d3): In some older participants and participants who had DM for a long time, the posterior surface of the lens was not visible. Therefore, d3, R4, nlens, and lens power could only be determined in 67 of the 75 control subjects, in 55 of the 114 patients with DM type 1, and in 32 of the 112 patients with DM type 2. The other parameters ( R3 and ACD) could be measured in all 301 subjects. The ocular refractive error was measured with an IRX3 aberrometer (Imagine Eye Optics, Paris, France), and calculated as: equivalent refractive error = sphere + (cylinder/2). The axial length of the eye was measured with an IOL-master (Carl Zeiss Inc., North America). The ACD was determined by measuring the distance from the anterior surface of the cornea to the anterior surface of the lens. The level of DR was graded from 2-field digital color 45-degree fundus photographs by 2 independent ophthalmologists. The level of retinopathy was subdivided into 3 categories: no retinopathy, mild to severe nonproliferative retinopathy, and proliferative retinopathy. Statistical Analysis First, preliminary analysis of the lens biometry was performed by means of simple linear regression of the lens parameters against age in each group separately. The linearity of the effect of age on the lens parameters was determined from normal probability plots of regression-standardized residuals; the age effect was linear in each group. Multiple linear regression analysis was then applied to test the influence of various independent variables (such as duration of DM, HbA1c level, or capillary blood glucose levels) on each lens parameter separately in the DM groups. Furthermore, multiple linear regression analysis was also performed to study significant differences between the 3 groups. The independent variable age and/or duration of DM was added to adjust for the effect of age and/or the duration of DM. A difference in regression slopes between the groups was tested by adding a product term to the model. In the analysis of the equivalent refractive error, a quadratic covariate (age − mean age)2 was added to the model because the equivalent refractive error is known to change slightly with age.12, 20, 22 All data were approximately normally distributed, and 2-sided P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. All analyses were performed with SPSS 14.0 software. Results The baseline characteristics of the 3 groups are presented in Table 1. The mean age in the 2 diabetic groups differed significantly from that of the control group (P<0.001). No statistically significant difference was found in the equivalent refractive error or axial eye length between the 3 groups. There was a significant difference in the duration of DM, HbA1c level, and blood glucose level between the 2 DM groups. The thickness, posterior radius, equivalent refractive index, and power of the lens were separately analyzed in 67 of the 75 control subjects, in 55 of the 114 patients with DM type 1, and in 32 of the 112 patients with DM type 2. The other parameters (anterior radius of the lens and the ACD) were separately analyzed in all 301 participants. Preliminary simple linear regression analyses demonstrated the important and significant effect of age on lens biometry in the 3 groups. This effect has been shown in Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, in which the thickness (Fig 1), anterior radius (Fig 2), and equivalent refractive index (Fig 3) of the lens with age for the 3 groups are shown. From these graphs, it can also be seen that the slopes of the regression lines of the lens parameters of the DM type 1 group are steeper than those of the control or the DM type 2 groups. These preliminary results were confirmed by the multiple regression analyses, in which adjustments were made for the effect of age. Type 1 DM seemed to be a powerful and significant determinant of lens biometry. After adjustment for age, the lenses of the patients with DM type 1 were significantly thicker (mean difference ± standard error [SE], 0.20±0.04 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09–0.30 mm; P<0.001), were more convex (R3; mean difference ± SE, −1.11±0.17 mm; 95% CI, −1.52 to −0.69 mm; P<0.001). For R4, mean difference ± SE was −0.37±0.11 mm and the 95% CI was −0.63 to −0.11 (P = 0.003), and had a lower equivalent refractive index (mean difference ± SE, −0.004±0.001; 95% CI, −0.007 to −0.001; P = 0.007) and lower ACD (mean difference ± SE, −0.13 ± 0.05 mm; 95% CI, −0.25 to −0.11 mm; P = 0.027) than those of the control group. Furthermore, a significant difference in the regression slopes of lens thickness d3 (95% CI, 0.001–0.018; P = 0.021), anterior radius R3 (95% CI, −0.064 to −0.009; P = 0.009), posterior radius R4 (95% CI, −0.043 to −0.002; P = 0.031), equivalent refractive index nlens (95% CI, −0.001 to −0.0001; P = 0.006), and ACD (95% CI, −0.017 to −0.001; P = 0.025) was found between the DM type 1 group and the control group. Type 2 DM had no significant effect on the lens parameters or ACD, and the regression slopes of the lens parameters (d3, R3, R4, nlens, and ACD) in the DM type 2 group did not differ from those of the control group. To investigate whether the difference in lens parameters was entirely due to the influence of DM, comparisons with adjustments for age and duration of DM were made between the 3 groups. No significant differences in lens parameters or ACD were found between the 3 groups after correction for age and duration of DM. In the DM type 1 group, the duration of DM was found to have a significant influence on the lens parameters d3, R3, R4, nlens, and ACD (P<0.05; Table 2). In this group, the independent effect of the duration of DM per year on d3, R3, R4, nlens, and ACD was 95%, 88%, 207%, 45%, and 75% of the effect of age per year, respectively. The important effect of the duration of DM on a DM type 1 lens is illustrated in video clip 1 (available online at http://aaojournal.org). This video clip shows the average effect of age on the shape of the lens over 37 years (left Scheimpflug image), and the same change with age and the additional effect of 31-year duration of DM type 1 (right Scheimpflug image). The clip has been constructed by morphing a corrected Scheimpflug image of a healthy 18-year-old man into the image of a 55-year-old man (left image). The right image shows the morphing of a corrected Scheimpflug image of an 18-year-old man with 4-year DM type 1 into the image of a 55-year-old man with 35-year history of DM type 1. These examples correspond well to the average change in lens shape with age and DM, according to the results of the present study. In the DM type 2 group, a significant effect of the duration of DM on R3 was found (Table 2). The effect of the duration of DM on the lens parameters was equal in males and females in the 2 DM groups. | | |  | | DM Type 1 | DM Type 2 | Control Group | |
|---|
| | Slope Duration (95% CI) | n | R | P | Slope Duration (95% CI) | n | R | P | Slope Age (95% CI) | Ratio | |
|---|
| d3 (mm) | 0.020 (0.012–0.027) | 55 | 0.83 | <0.01 | 0.002(−0.016to0.021) | 32 | 0.59 | 0.80 | 0.021(0.018–0.025) | 0.95 | | | R3 (mm) | −0.056(−0.075to−0.036) | 114 | 0.78 | <0.01 | −0.035(−0.063to−0.007) | 112 | 0.44 | 0.01 | −0.064(−0.085to−0.043) | 0.88 | | | R4 (mm) | −0.031(−0.049to−0.014) | 55 | 0.62 | <0.01 | 0.005(−0.047to0.056) | 32 | 0.20 | 0.86 | −0.015(−0.024to−0.006) | 2.07 | | | nlens | −1.81×10−4(−0.36to−0.02×10−4) | 55 | 0.76 | 0.04 | −0.64×10−4(−6.07to4.78×10−4) | 32 | 0.44 | 0.81 | −4.0×10−4(−5.29to−2.57×10−4) | 0.45 | | | ACD (mm) | −0.012(−0.018to−0.007) | 114 | 0.69 | <0.01 | −0.007(−0.015to−0.002) | 112 | 0.34 | 0.12 | −0.016(−0.022to−0.010) | 0.75 | | | | |
No significant effect of age on the lens power or the equivalent refractive error could be demonstrated in any of the 3 groups. Furthermore, neither the lens power nor the equivalent refractive error differed between the groups. No significant association was found between the duration of DM and lens power or equivalent refractive error. To determine associations between the lens biometry and various systemic factors, such as HbA1c, capillary blood glucose levels, and use of insulin, multiple regression analysis was performed for each of these variables in the 2 DM groups. HbA1c and capillary blood glucose levels had no significant influence on the various lens parameters. In the DM type 2 group, there was no difference in the lens parameters of patients who used insulin, patients who took oral medication, and patients who were managed with diet. After adjustment for age only, R3 in the DM type 1 group was significantly decreased in patients with proliferative DR compared to patients with no DR (mean difference ± SE, 0.82±0.25 mm; 95% CI, 0.21–1.43 mm; P = 0.005) or with mild to severe nonproliferative DR (mean difference ± SE, 1.08±0.24 mm; 95% CI, 0.51–1.65 mm; P<0.001). In the DM type 2 group, R3 was only significantly decreased after adjustment for age in patients with proliferative DR compared with patients with mild to severe nonproliferative DR (mean difference ± SE, 0.61±0.25 mm; 95% CI, 0.01–1.22 mm; P = 0.045). In both diabetic groups, the tests for linear trend were significant (DM type 1, P<0.001; DM type 2, P = 0.008), which means that R3 decreases as the severity of DR increases. However, R3 or any of the other lens parameters of patients in the 2 DM groups were not affected by the level of DR after adjustment for age and duration of DM. Discussion The aim of the present study was to study the influence of DM on the thickness, shape, equivalent refractive index, and power of the lens by measuring these parameters in patients with DM types 1 and 2, and to compare them with those of control subjects. The results of this study confirm the previous findings that DM type 1 has a profound effect on lens biometry. Furthermore, it adds to this knowledge the calculation of the equivalent refractive index of the lens, which was found to decrease significantly with age and duration of DM. It was also found that DM type 1 seemed to have a large impact on lens biometry, whereas DM type 2 did not affect the lens thickness, shape, or equivalent refractive index. Corrected Scheimpflug imaging2, 24 was used to measure the lens biometry. It is important to correct the Scheimpflug images because of distortion owing to the geometry of the camera and the refraction of the different ocular surfaces. This method has been shown to be accurate and reproducible in both in vivo and in vitro method validation experiments.1, 2, 24 Several studies have investigated the effect of DM type 1 on the thickness and/or shape of the lens.3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 In the present study, an increase in average lens thickness of 0.2 mm was found in the DM type 1 group, which is in agreement with the results of Fledelius and Miyamoto4 and Pierro et al.9 Furthermore, the duration of DM had an important effect on the thickness and shape of the lens. The independent effect of the duration of DM on lens thickness and the anterior and posterior radius was 95%, 88%, and 207%, respectively, of the age-effect per year. Sparrow et al5 reported 68%, 88%, and 52% for the lens thickness, anterior and posterior radius, respectively. The difference between the percentages for lens thickness and posterior radius could be due to the fact that these authors used uncorrected Scheimpflug imaging, which could have resulted in an underestimation of the lens thickness, and especially the posterior radius. Despite the significant changes in lens biometry that were found in the DM type 1 group, ocular refraction did not change significantly with the duration of DM. This is in contrast to the findings of Fledelius and Miyamoto,4 who explained a myopic shift in DM with an increase in lens thickness. In the present study, the equivalent refractive index of the lens was calculated, and it was found to decrease significantly with age in the control group, and to decrease even more with age and duration of DM in the DM type 1 group. Therefore, the additional decrease in equivalent refractive index of the lens seemed to compensate for the profound increase in lens convexity due to DM type 1. The fact that the lens power was not affected by the duration of DM, and also did not differ between the groups, confirms this finding. The origin of the decrease in equivalent refractive index of the lens remains unclear. It has been suggested that the water content of the healthy lens increases with age29 and that this could result in a decrease in refractive power. This could also be true for the diabetic lens. Furthermore, the increase in the dimensions of the diabetic lens may be due to an abnormality in the growth of the lens, a swelling of the lens, or a decrease in central compaction of the mature lens fibers. The growth of the healthy lens has been reported to be almost entirely due to an increase in 1 of the zones (C2) of the cortex.30, 31, 32 A close analysis of the size of the alternating light and dark zones in the cortex and the size of the nucleus of the diabetic lens could possibly identify the cause of the increase in dimensions of the lens in patients with DM, that is, if the rate of production of the lens fibers was enhanced, an increase in zone C2 of the cortex would occur. On the other hand, if cellular or extracellular overhydration occurred, resulting in a swelling of the lens as a whole or an increase in the size of the individual lens fibers, there would be an increase in all the different zones of the lens. Surprisingly, no significant differences in lens biometry were found between the DM type 2 group and the control group, and no significant effect of the duration of DM on the lens could be determined, except for the anterior lens radius. These results agree with the findings of Sparrow et al,6 who observed a significant effect of the duration of DM on lens biometry in a DM type 1 group, but not in a DM type 2 group. They suggested that this was because the exact duration of the disease was unknown in DM type 2. Nonetheless, the duration of DM type 2 is generally underestimated, which would amplify any genuine relationship of lens biometry with duration of DM. In the present study, the posterior lens radius (and thus the lens thickness and the equivalent refractive index of the lens) was not easy to examine because of the thickening of the lens with age. This resulted in fewer measurements of DM type 2 lenses. However, the ACD could be examined in all DM type 2 patients, and no change was found with the duration of DM. This indicates that any effect of the duration of DM on lens thickness in the DM type 2 group would have been minor. Furthermore, it can be concluded that DM types 1 and 2 most likely have a different impact on lens biometry. All patients with DM type 1 and 58% of the patients with DM type 2 used insulin. The effect of insulin on lens biometry was investigated in the DM type 2 group, but no association was found between the lens parameters and the use of insulin in this group. Despite the fact that in vitro studies have shown that insulin can stimulate mitogenesis of the epithelial cells of the lens and that it is capable of inducing hypertrophy in epithelial tissues,33, 34 there is no agreement on the effect of insulin on lens biometry in the results of clinical studies. Pierro et al9 reported a lack of correlation between lens thickness and insulin dosage in insulin-dependent DM patients, and Sparrow et al5 observed an increase in the anterior clear zone of the lens with an increase in the daily insulin dose. Furthermore, in the present study the effect of DM control on lens biometry was determined by means of HbA1c and capillary blood glucose levels. No significant association was found between blood glucose levels and lens biometry, which is in accordance with the findings of Pierro et al.9 However, it could be that a more prolonged follow-up of the blood glucose levels could provide evidence for an association between DM control and lens biometry. A relationship between the level of retinopathy and lens biometry was found in both DM groups. A longer duration of DM increases the risk of developing retinopathy,35, 36 and with a longer duration of DM, lens thickness and convexity have been found to increase. This was likewise concluded by Pierro et al9 and Sparrow et al.5 However, after adjusting for both age and duration of DM, the association between the level of retinopathy and lens biometry disappeared. This indicates that the association was presumably entirely due to the influence of the duration of DM, and not a diffusion of a growth factor from the posterior eye segment, as hypothesized by Sparrow et al.6 In conclusion, the results of the present study indicate that DM type 1 has a major impact on lens biometry. The substantial differences in effect on lens biometry between DM types 1 and 2 may indicate a fundamental difference in pathogenesis. In patients with DM type 1, the decrease in equivalent refractive index of the lens seemed to compensate for the profound increase in lens convexity, resulting in no significant change in lens power or ocular refraction with the duration of DM. Supplementary data Video clip 1. VidClip of corrected Scheimpflug images of the effect of age on the shape of the lens in 37 years (left image), and the same change with age and the additional effect of 31-year duration of diabetes mellitus (DM) type 1 (right image). It can be seen that, owing to the additional effect of DM type 1, the diabetic lens becomes much thicker and more convex than the healthy lens. These examples correspond well with the average change in the shape of the lens with age and DM, according to the results of the present study. References 1. 1Dubbelman M, van der Heijde GL, Weeber HA. The thickness of the aging human lens obtained from corrected Scheimpflug images. Optom Vis Sci. 2001;78:411–416. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
2. 2Dubbelman M, van der Heijde GL. The shape of the aging human lens: curvature, equivalent refractive index and the lens paradox. Vision Res. 2001;41:1867–1877. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
3. 3Brown N, Hungerford J. The influence of the size of the lens in ocular disease. Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K. 1982;102:359–363. 4. 4Fledelius HC, Miyamoto K. Diabetic myopia—is it lens-induced? (An oculometric study comprising ultrasound measurements). Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1987;65:469–473. 5. 5Sparrow JM, Bron AJ, Brown NA, Neil HA. Biometry of the crystalline lens in early-onset diabetes. Br J Ophthalmol. 1990;74:654–660. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
6. 6Sparrow JM, Bron AJ, Phelps Brown NA, Neil HA. Biometry of the crystalline lens in late onset diabetes: the importance of diabetic type. Br J Ophthalmol. 1992;76:428–433. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
7. 7Bron AJ, Sparrow J, Brown NA, et al. The lens in diabetes. Eye. 1993;7:260–275. 8. 8Logstrup N, Sjolie AK, Kyvik KO, Green A. Lens thickness and insulin dependent diabetes mellitus: a population based twin study. Br J Ophthalmol. 1996;80:405–408. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
9. 9Pierro L, Brancato R, Zaganelli E, et al. Correlation of lens thickness with blood glucose control in diabetes mellitus. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1996;74:539–541. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
10. 10Klein BE, Klein R, Moss SE. Correlates of lens thickness: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1998;39:1507–1510. MEDLINE 11. 11Saw SM, Wong TY, Ting S, et al. The relationship between anterior chamber depth and the presence of diabetes in the Tanjong Pagar Survey. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;144:325–326. Abstract | Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (72 KB)
|
CrossRef
12. 12Slataper FJ. Age norms of refraction and vision. AMA Arch Ophthalmol. 1950;43:466–481. 13. 13Saunders H. A longitudinal study of the age-dependence of human ocular refraction—I (Age-dependent changes in the equivalent sphere). Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1986;6:39–46. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
14. 14Koretz JF, Handelman GH. The lens paradox and image formation in accommodating human eyes. In: Duncan G editors. The Lens: Transparency and Cataract: Proceedings of the EURAGE/BBS Symposium. Rijswijk, Netherlands: EURAGE; 1986;p. 57–64. 15. 15Hemenger RP, Garner LF, Ooi CS. Change with age of the refractive index gradient of the human ocular lens. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1995;36:703–707. MEDLINE 16. 16Garner LF, Ooi CS, Smith G. Refractive index of the crystalline lens in young and aged eyes. Clin Exp Optom. 1998;81:145–150. 17. 17Moffat BA, Atchison DA, Pope JM. Age-related changes in refractive index distribution and power of the human lens as measured by magnetic resonance micro-imaging in vitro. Vision Res. 2002;42:1683–1693. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
18. 18Moffat BA, Atchison DA, Pope JM. Explanation of the lens paradox. Optom Vis Sci. 2002;79:148–150. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
19. 19Fledelius HC. Is myopia getting more frequent? (A cross-sectional study of 1416 Danes aged 16 years+). Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1983;61:545–559. 20. 20Lee KE, Klein BE, Klein R, Wong TY. Changes in refraction over 10 years in an adult population: the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:2566–2571. MEDLINE 21. 21Raju P, Ramesh SV, Arvind H, et al. Prevalence of refractive errors in a rural South Indian population. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:4268–4272. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
22. 22Guzowski M, Wang JJ, Rochtchina E, et al. Five-year refractive changes in an older population: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:1364–1370. Abstract | Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (230 KB)
|
CrossRef
23. 23Shimizu N, Nomura H, Ando F, et al. Refractive errors and factors associated with myopia in an adult Japanese population. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2003;47:6–12. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
24. 24Dubbelman M, van der Heijde GL, Weeber HA. Change in shape of the aging human crystalline lens with accommodation. Vision Res. 2005;45:117–132. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
25. 25Kampfer T, Wegener A, Dragomirescu V, Hockwin O. Improved biometry of the anterior eye segment. Ophthalmic Res. 1989;21:239–248. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
26. 26Fink W. Refractive correction method for digital charge-coupled device-recorded Scheimpflug photographs by means of ray tracing. J Biomed Opt. 2005;10:. 27. 27World Health Organization. Fact sheet no 312 (Diabetes (September 2006)). www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs312/en. 28. 28Rabbetts RB. Bennett & Rabbetts' Clinical Visual Optics. In: Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1998;p. 207–228. 29. 29Siebinga I, Vrensen GF, De Mul FF, Greve J. Age-related changes in local water and protein content of human eye lenses measured by Raman microspectroscopy. Exp Eye Res. 1991;53:233–239. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
30. 30Sparrow JM, Bron AJ, Brown NA, et al. The Oxford Clinical Cataract Classification and Grading System. Int Ophthalmol. 1986;9:207–225. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
31. 31Smith GT, Smith RC, Brown NA, et al. Changes in light scatter and width measurements from the human lens cortex with age. Eye. 1992;6:55–59. 32. 32Dubbelman M, van der Heijde GL, Weeber HA, Vrensen GF. Changes in the internal structure of the human crystalline lens with age and accommodation. Vision Res. 2003;43:2363–2375. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
33. 33Reddan JR, Dziedzic DC. Insulin-like growth factors, IGF-1, IGF-2 and somatomedin C trigger cell proliferation in mammalian epithelial cells cultured in a serum-free medium. Exp Cell Res. 1982;142:293–300. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
34. 34Reddan JR, Wilson-Dziedzic D. Insulin growth factor and epidermal growth factor trigger mitosis in lenses cultured in a serum-free medium. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1983;24:409–416. MEDLINE 35. 35Klein R, Klein BE, Moss SE, et al. The Wisconsin Epidemiologic Study of Diabetic Retinopathy (II. Prevalence and risk of diabetic retinopathy when age at diagnosis is less than 30 years). Arch Ophthalmol. 1984;102:520–526. MEDLINE 36. 36Klein R, Klein BE, Moss SE, et al. The Wisconsin Epidemiologic Study of Diabetic Retinopathy (III. Prevalence and risk of diabetic retinopathy when age at diagnosis is 30 or more years). Arch Ophthalmol. 1984;102:527–532. MEDLINE 1 Department of Ophthalmology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2 Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 3 Department of Physics and Medical Technology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 4 Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands  Correspondence: Nanouk G. M. Wiemer, MD, Department of Ophthalmology, VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Manuscript no.: 2007-1591. Financial Disclosure(s): The authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article. PII: S0161-6420(08)00287-X doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.03.019 © 2008 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. | |
|
FULL TEXT
00287-X/journalimage?img=PIIS016164200800287X.gr1.lrg.gif&fig=fig1&kwhquery=&issn=0161-6420&ishighres=false&allhighres=false&free=yes','journalimage');)
00287-X/journalimage?img=PIIS016164200800287X.gr2.lrg.gif&fig=fig2&kwhquery=&issn=0161-6420&ishighres=false&allhighres=false&free=yes','journalimage');)
00287-X/journalimage?img=PIIS016164200800287X.gr3.lrg.gif&fig=fig3&kwhquery=&issn=0161-6420&ishighres=false&allhighres=false&free=yes','journalimage');)
