Crystalline lens power and refractive error.

PURPOSE To study the relationships between the refractive power of the crystalline lens, overall refractive error of the eye, and degree of nuclear cataract. METHODS All phakic participants of the population-based Central India Eye and Medical Study with an age of 50+ years were included. Calculation of the refractive lens power was based on distance noncycloplegic refractive error, corneal refractive power, anterior chamber depth, lens thickness, and axial length according to Bennett's formula. RESULTS The study included 1885 subjects. Mean refractive lens power was 25.5 ± 3.0 D (range, 13.9-36.6). After adjustment for age and sex, the standardized correlation coefficients (β) of the association with the ocular refractive error were highest for crystalline lens power (β = -0.41; P < 0.001) and nuclear lens opacity grade (β = -0.42; P < 0.001), followed by axial length (β = -0.35; P < 0.001). They were lowest for corneal refractive power (β = -0.08; P = 0.001) and anterior chamber depth (β = -0.05; P = 0.04). In multivariate analysis, refractive error was significantly (P < 0.001) associated with shorter axial length (β = -1.26), lower refractive lens power (β = -0.95), lower corneal refractive power (β = -0.76), higher lens thickness (β = 0.30), deeper anterior chamber (β = 0.28), and less marked nuclear lens opacity (β = -0.05). Lens thickness was significantly lower in eyes with greater nuclear opacity. CONCLUSIONS Variations in refractive error in adults aged 50+ years were mostly influenced by variations in axial length and in crystalline lens refractive power, followed by variations in corneal refractive power, and, to a minor degree, by variations in lens thickness and anterior chamber depth.

[1]  T. Olsen On the calculation of power from curvature of the cornea. , 1986, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[2]  A. G. Bennett,et al.  A method of determining the equivalent powers of the eye and its crystalline lens without resort to phakometry. , 1988, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[3]  J. Sparrow,et al.  Central compaction in the process of lens growth as indicated by lamellar cataract. , 1988, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[4]  J. Jonas,et al.  Refractive error in central India: the Central India Eye and Medical Study. , 2010, Ophthalmology.

[5]  P. Mitchell,et al.  Variation of the contribution from axial length and other oculometric parameters to refraction by age and ethnicity. , 2007, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[6]  Mina Torres,et al.  Refractive error, ocular biometry, and lens opalescence in an adult population: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. , 2005, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[7]  A. Fotouhi,et al.  Validity of noncycloplegic refraction in the assessment of refractive errors: the Tehran Eye Study , 2012, Acta ophthalmologica.

[8]  G. van der Heijde,et al.  The Thickness of the Aging Human Lens Obtained from Corrected Scheimpflug Images , 2001, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[9]  P. B. Donzis,et al.  Refractive development of the human eye. , 1985, Archives of ophthalmology.

[10]  Kazuyuki Sasaki,et al.  On the ocular refractive components: the Reykjavik Eye Study. , 2007, Acta ophthalmologica Scandinavica.

[11]  A. Kuszak,et al.  Structural evidence of human nuclear fiber compaction as a function of ageing and cataractogenesis. , 2001, Experimental eye research.

[12]  R. Truscott,et al.  Free and bound water in normal and cataractous human lenses. , 2008, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[13]  B. Pierscionek,et al.  Presbyopia – effect of refractive index , 1990 .

[14]  J F Koretz,et al.  How the human eye focuses. , 1988, Scientific American.

[15]  Karla Zadnik,et al.  Comparison of ocular component growth curves among refractive error groups in children. , 2005, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[16]  David A Atchison,et al.  In vivo study of changes in refractive index distribution in the human crystalline lens with age and accommodation. , 2008, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[17]  A SORSBY,et al.  Emmetropia and its aberrations. , 1956, Transactions. Ophthalmological Society of the United Kingdom.

[18]  R. Augusteyn On the growth and internal structure of the human lens. , 2010, Experimental eye research.

[19]  Stuart G. Parker,et al.  The age-related eye disease study (AREDS) system for classifying cataracts from photographs: AREDS report no. 4. , 2001, American journal of ophthalmology.

[20]  G. V. Alphen On emmetropia and ametropia. , 1961 .

[21]  Adrian Glasser,et al.  Minus Lens Stimulated Accommodative Lag as a Function of Age , 2009, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[22]  J. Jonas,et al.  Ocular axial length and its associations in an adult population of central rural India: the Central India Eye and Medical Study. , 2010, Ophthalmology.

[23]  A. Sorsby,et al.  A longitudinal study of refraction and its components during growth. , 1969, Special report series (Medical Research Council (Great Britain)).

[24]  G. V. Alphen On Emmetropia and Ametropia (Part 1 of 4) , 1961 .

[25]  A. Gullstrand Procedure of the rays in the eye. Imagery-laws of first order. , 1924 .

[26]  R. Truscott,et al.  Presbyopia. Emerging from a blur towards an understanding of the molecular basis for this most common eye condition. , 2009, Experimental eye research.

[27]  N. Brown,et al.  The change in lens curvature with age. , 1974, Experimental eye research.

[28]  K. Mohammad,et al.  Increased hyperopia with ageing based on cycloplegic refractions in adults: the Tehran Eye Study , 2009, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[29]  G. Vrensen,et al.  The Ageing Lens , 2000, Ophthalmologica.