Aim To investigate changes in central corneal thickness (CCT) and intraocular pressure (IOP) in children after congenital cataract surgery, as well as risk factors associated with these changes.
Methods 37 eyes of 26 children with congenital cataract undergoing surgery were prospectively recruited. IOP and CCT measurements were performed before the surgery and 6, 12, 18, 24 and 36 months after the procedure.
Results Among the 37 eyes, 15 became aphakic and 22 pseudophakic. Mean CCT significantly increased from 556.24±44.19 to 585.07±56.45 μm (p=0.003) after 3 years, whereas mean IOP significantly increased from 12.05±2.3 to 13.89±2.96 mm Hg (p=0.037). Aphakic eyes underwent surgery at an early age (15.16±32.02 months) compared with pseudophakic eyes (71.48±53.14 months) (p<0.001). After 3 years, mean CCT change in aphakic eyes (56.10±46.97 μm) was significantly higher than in pseudophakic eyes (12.71±38.41 μm) (p=0.015). Age at the time of surgery was inversely correlated to CCT change (r=−0.34, p=0.04), but not to IOP change (r=−0.18, p=0.27). When surgery was performed between 0 and 1 year of age, mean CCT change at 3 years was 70.11±42.3 μm, compared with 6.27±28.09, −17.0±8.04 and 48.33±34.99 μm when surgeries were performed at 1–5, 5–10 and >10 years old, respectively (p<0.001). IOP change was not correlated to CCT change (r=0.31, p=0.06).
Conclusions CCT increases in eyes undergoing congenital cataract surgery, especially when the surgery is performed at an early age.
- Congenital cataract
- central corneal thickness
- intraocular pressure
- child health (paediatrics)
- treatment surgery
- diagnostic tests/investigation
- visual perception
- public health
- lens and zonules
- contact lens
- wound healing
- field of vision
- optic nerve
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Meeting Presentation Presented in part at the World Glaucoma Congress 2011 (Paris, France) and Pan-American Congress of Ophthalmology (Buenos Aires, Argentina).
Competing interests None.
Patient consent Obtained from the parents.
Ethics approval Ethics approval was provided by the Institutional Ethics Committee (number 248/2006 CAAE 0181.0.146.000-06).
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.