» Articles » PMID: 28915799

Analysis of Various Factors Affecting Pupil Size in Patients with Glaucoma

Overview
Journal BMC Ophthalmol
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Ophthalmology
Date 2017 Sep 17
PMID 28915799
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Pupil size is an important factor in predicting post-operative satisfaction. We assessed the correlation between pupil size, measured by Humphrey static perimetry, and various affecting factors in patients with glaucoma.

Methods: In total, 825 eyes of 415 patients were evaluated retrospectively. Pupil size was measured with Humphrey static perimetry. Comparisons of pupil size according to the presence of glaucoma were evaluated, as were correlations between pupil size and various factors, including age, logMAR best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness, spherical equivalent, intraocular pressure, axial length, central corneal thickness, white-to-white, and the kappa angle.

Results: Pupil size was significantly smaller in glaucoma patients than in glaucoma suspects (p < 0.001) or the normal group (p < 0.001). Pupil size decreased significantly as age (p < 0.001) and central cornea thickness (p = 0.007) increased, and increased significantly as logMAR BCVA (p = 0.02) became worse and spherical equivalent (p = 0.007) and RNFL thickness (p = 0.042) increased. In patients older than 50 years, pupil size was significantly larger in eyes with a history of cataract surgery.

Conclusions: Humphrey static perimetry can be useful in measuring pupil size. Pupil size was significantly smaller in eyes with glaucoma. Other factors affecting pupil size can be used in a preoperative evaluation when considering cataract surgery or laser refractive surgery.

Citing Articles

Influence of Pilocarpine Eyedrops on the Ocular Biometric Parameters and Intraocular Lens Power Calculation.

Gao R, Liu J, Zhou X, Huang L, Huang W, Xue Y J Ophthalmol. 2023; 2023:7680659.

PMID: 37455794 PMC: 10348856. DOI: 10.1155/2023/7680659.


Radiology blues: Comparing occupational blue-light exposure to recommended safety standards.

Wentzel M, van Rensburg J, Terblans J SA J Radiol. 2023; 27(1):2522.

PMID: 36756358 PMC: 9900293. DOI: 10.4102/sajr.v27i1.2522.


Effect of Pupil Size on Fixed-Luminance Flicker Full-Field Electroretinogram Magnitude.

Mobasserian A, Zaidi M, Halim S, Hwang J, Regenold J, Akhavanrezayat A Clin Ophthalmol. 2022; 16:3733-3740.

PMID: 36389637 PMC: 9664919. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S382207.


Evidence That Pupil Size and Reactivity Are Determined More by Your Parents Than by Your Environment.

Ansari A, Vehof J, Hammond C, Bremner F, Williams K Front Neurol. 2021; 12:651755.

PMID: 34012416 PMC: 8127779. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2021.651755.


Increased Equivalent Input Noise in Glaucomatous Central Vision: Is it Due to Undersampling of Retinal Ganglion Cells?.

Liu R, Kwon M Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2020; 61(8):10.

PMID: 32645132 PMC: 7425734. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.61.8.10.


References
1.
Link B, Junemann A, Rix R, Sembritzki O, Brenning A, Korth M . Pupillographic measurements with pattern stimulation: the pupil's response in normal subjects and first measurements in glaucoma patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006; 47(11):4947-55. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.06-0021. View

2.
Moller D, Buchholz I, Huebscher H . [Pupil physiology after cataract surgery]. Ophthalmologe. 2000; 97(4):264-7. DOI: 10.1007/s003470050523. View

3.
Boxer Wachler B, Hiatt D, Chou B, Christie J . Reduction of pupil size and halos with minus lenses after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Refract Surg. 2004; 20(2):149-54. DOI: 10.3928/1081-597X-20040301-09. View

4.
Chaglasian E, Akbar S, Probst L . Pupil measurement using the Colvard pupillometer and a standard pupil card with a cobalt blue filter penlight. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006; 32(2):255-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2005.08.061. View

5.
Linke S, Baviera J, Munzer G, Fricke O, Richard G, Katz T . Mesopic pupil size in a refractive surgery population (13,959 eyes). Optom Vis Sci. 2012; 89(8):1156-64. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e318263c165. View