Aim To compare the axial eye length growth of the two fellow eyes within one patient after unilateral paediatric cataract surgery and to assess changes in refraction and keratometry.
Patients/methods A retrospective study in 90 eyes of 45 patients was performed. The 45 patients were divided into group 1 (patients younger than 18 months at the time of surgery, n=25) and group 2 (patients 18 months or older at the time of surgery, n=20). The axial eye length, spherical equivalent refraction and keratometry were measured during surgery and at follow-up. All outcome data in the operated eyes were compared with the outcome data of the fellow non-operated eyes. The Student t test was used for statistical analysis. Values of p<0.05 were considered statistically significant.
Results In group 1 the absolute growth (mm) of the operated eyes was borderline statistically significantly less than in the fellow non-operated eyes (p=0.049). No statistically significant difference in the rate of axial growth between the two eyes was found (p=0.25). A larger myopic shift (p=3.85×10−5) and a larger change in keratometry (p=0.02) were found in the operated eyes. In group 2 no statistically significant differences were found between the two eyes.
Conclusion We did not find a statistically significant difference in axial length growth between the operated eyes and fellow non-operated eyes in our unilateral paediatric cataract patients.
- Eye (globe)
- child health (paediatrics)
- lens and zonules
- optics and refraction
- treatment surgery
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Linked articles 168112.
Competing interests None.
Patient consent Obtained.
Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the Ethics Committee, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.