Association between ocular dominance and spherical/astigmatic anisometropia, age, and sex: analysis of 1274 hyperopic individuals

Factors influencing dominant eye selection in refractive surgery patients: A correlation analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to reveal the factors influencing the selection of the dominant eye in refractive surgery patients, and enhance the accuracy of clinical evaluation and surgical treatment.

METHODS

A retrospective study method was employed. The ocular biometric parameters were analyzed in 4,114 patients who underwent refractive surgery at the affiliated hospital of Southwest Medical University from 2019 to 2023.

RESULTS

The study found that 79.07% of the patients had the right eye as the dominant eye, while 20.93% had the left eye. Although there was no significant difference between the dominant and non-dominant eyes in terms of uncorrected visual acuity and Kappa angle, the dominant eye performed better in aspects such as spherical lens, eye axis, and corneal flat curvature. Furthermore, univariate and multivariate logistic regression results showed that best-corrected visual acuity, pupil diameter, horizontal displacement x-value of the Kappa angle, and astigmatism vector J45 were significant influencing factors for the selection of the dominant eye.

CONCLUSION

There are numerous factors affecting the dominant eye, and the most important core factor is J45. This study comprehensively evaluated the possible factors affecting the dominant eye in patients undergoing refractive surgery, which provides a foundation for the designation of refractive surgical modalities and assurance of surgical outcomes, and opens up new perspectives on understanding the mechanisms of the formation and development of the dominant eye.

Relationship of Sighting Ocular Dominance with Macular Photostress Test Time and Thickness of the Middle Macular Layers

SIGNIFICANCE

The mechanisms of sighting ocular dominance, which is particularly important in monovision therapies and sports vision, are not fully understood yet. Whether the macula affects ocular dominance or ocular dominance affects the macula is also a subject of interest.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship of sighting ocular dominance with macular photostress test time and middle macular layer thickness.

METHODS

One-hundred eyes of 50 healthy adult volunteers were included in this cross-sectional study. Sighting eye dominance was decided by a hole-in-the-card test. The macular photostress test was performed by exposing the eye to the ophthalmoscope light for 10 seconds and measuring the time taken to return to visual acuity within one row of pre-light exposure acuity. The spectral-domain optical coherence tomography examinations were performed to measure thickness of middle macular layers (i.e., outer nuclear, outer plexiform, inner nuclear, and inner plexiform). Refractive error and intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements were also recorded.

RESULTS

The comparison of dominant and nondominant eyes in the aspect of refractive error, IOP, and macular photostress test time did not show statistically significant differences (P > .05). The thicknesses of macular outer nuclear, outer plexiform, inner nuclear, and inner plexiform layers were similar in the dominant and nondominant eyes (P > .05). In addition, macular photostress time was not statistically significantly correlated with the thickness of middle macular layers (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The thickness of middle macular layers and macular photostress recovery time are similar in dominant and nondominant eyes.

Eyes of Aniso-Axial Length Individuals Share Generally Similar Corneal Biometrics with Normal Eyes in Cataract Population

AIMS

To determine the characteristics of corneal biometrics in eyes from aniso-axial length cataract patients compared with eyes from non-aniso-axial length individuals.

METHODS

This is a retrospective case series. Cataract patients with preoperative binocular measurements were recruited. A binocular axial difference of ≥1 mm was considered to indicate aniso-axial length. The anterior segmental biometrics were measured using Pentacam HR (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany) and IOLMaster 500 (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany). Comparisons of biometrics were made among 4 eye conditions: the longer eyes from aniso-axial length patients, the shorter eyes from aniso-axial length patients, the longer eyes from non-aniso-axial length patients, and the shorter eyes from non-aniso-axial length patients. The aniso-axial length eyes were also stratified into 8 subgroups with axial length (AL) increments of 1 mm, and the biometrics of the subgroups were compared.

RESULTS

There was smaller anterior corneal astigmatism in the shorter aniso-axial length group than those in the longer aniso-axial length group (1.01 ± 0.70 D vs 1.12 ± 0.76 D, P=0.031). The longer aniso-axial length eyes had greater anterior corneal steep curvature (44.13 ± 1.69 D vs 43.87 ± 1.69 D, P=0.009) and anterior corneal astigmatism (1.12 ± 0.76 D vs 1.02 ± 0.69 D, P=0.023) compared with longer non-aniso-axial length subjects. Other corneal biometrics were similar between the aniso-axial length eyes and the non-aniso-axial length eyes. In the longer aniso-axial length group, the posterior corneal aberrations of eyes in the ≥5 mm subgroups were greater than those in the <5 mm subgroups (0.879 ± 0.183 μm vs 0.768 ± 0.178 μm for total aberrations, P < 0.001; 0.228 ± 0.086 μm vs 0.196 ± 0.043 μm for high-order aberrations, P=0.036; 0.847 ± 0.173 μm vs 0.741 ± 0.179 μm for low-order aberrations, P=0.001).

CONCLUSION

Eyes of aniso-axial length individuals share generally similar corneal biometrics with normal eyes in cataract population. Anterior corneal astigmatism of the longer eyes from the aniso-axial length cataract patients was higher than that of the longer eyes from the non-aniso-axial length individuals. Total posterior corneal aberrations of the longer aniso-axial length eyes increased when the binocular axial difference was over 5 mm.

Elucidation of the more myopic eye in anisometropia: the interplay of laterality, ocular dominance, and anisometropic magnitude

This study reveals how, in a myopic anisometrope, the odds of an eye being more myopic are related to laterality, ocular dominance, and magnitude of anisometropia. In 193 subjects, objective refraction was performed with cycloplegia. Sighting, motor, and sensory dominance were determined with the hole-in-the-card test, convergence near-point test, continuous flashing technique, respectively. Multiple logistic regression was used for probability analysis. Seventy percent of the subjects had a right eye that was more myopic, while 30% of them had a more myopic left eye. When the right eye was the sensory dominant eye, the probability of the right eye being more myopic increased to 80% if the anisometropia was less than 3.0 D, and decreased below 70% if anisometropia was beyond 3.0 D. When the left eye was the sensory dominant eye, the probability of the left eye being more myopic increased to above 40% if the anisometropia was less than 4.0 D and decreased below 30% if the anisometropia was beyond 4.0 D. Therefore, between the two eyes of anisometropes, laterality tilts the chance of being more myopic to the right. Being the sensory dominant eye increases an eye’s probability of being more myopic by another 10% if the magnitude of anisometropia is moderate.

Association of Visual Acuity with Ocular Dominance in 2045 Myopic Patients

PURPOSE

Previous studies of the relationship between visual acuity (VA) and ocular dominance have produced conflicting results. We hypothesized that (1) the discrepancies were related mostly to sample size and interocular visual acuity difference (IOVAD); (2) in large samples of individuals with marked IOVADs, the eye with the better uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) would be dominant. These hypotheses were tested in a large group of myopic patients.

METHODS

This prospective study of cycloplegic refraction involved 2045 myopic refractive surgery candidates. Patients with amblyopia or strabismus were excluded. Ocular dominance was assessed using the hole-in-the-card test.

RESULTS

In 2045 patients, the dominant eye had significantly better UDVA (p = 0.028) and was less astigmatic (p = 0.000) than the nondominant eye. In 426 patients with marked interocular difference in the UDVA (≥0.2 logMAR), the dominant eye not only had significant UDVA (p = 0.022) but also significantly less myopic (p = 0.028) and had a shorter axial length (AL; p = 0.001). In patients with smaller differences in UDVA (0.1 logMAR, n = 411) or no difference (n = 1208), the dominant and nondominant eyes did not differ significantly with respect to UDVA, myopic power, and AL (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study showed that the dominant eyes had significantly better UDVA than the nondominant eyes, especially in individuals with marked differences in UDVA. These results supported our hypothesis regarding the relationship between better VA and ocular dominance.

Association Between Ocular Dominance and Anisometropic Hyperopia

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

Anisometropia, a relative difference in the refractive state of the two eyes, is common in hyperopic patients. We investigated the association between ocular dominance (sighting dominance) and refractive asymmetry in patients with hyperopia.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 223 hyperopic patients with a mean age of 10.1 ± 3.6 years (range 3 to 21 years). Refractive error was measured with cycloplegic refraction, and axial length was measured with IOLMaster^® (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA). Ocular dominance was assessed with the hole-in-the-card test. The amount of hyperopic anisometropia was subdivided into four groups: less than 0.50 D, 0.50-0.99 D, 1.00-1.99 D, and 2.00 D or greater.

RESULTS

Ocular dominance of the right and left eye was seen in 66% and 34% of the patients, respectively. The nondominant eye had higher hyperopia, astigmatism, and shorter axial length than the dominant eye (P < 0.001). In the group with spherical equivalent anisometropia of ≥0.50 D in particular, the nondominant eye was significantly more hyperopic and had shorter axial length than the dominant eye (both P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study revealed that the nondominant eye had a greater hyperopic refractive error and shorter axial length than the dominant eye, in patients who had a high degree of anisometropia in particular.

Anisometropia of ocular refractive and biometric measures among 66- to 79-year-old female twins

PURPOSE

To examine the prevalence of anisometropia of spherical refraction (AnisoSR), astigmatism (AnisoAST) and spherical equivalent (AnisoSE) and their associations with spherical refraction (SR), refractive astigmatism (AST), spherical equivalent (SE) and interocular differences of ocular biometric parameters among elderly female twins.

METHODS

Refraction of 117 monozygotic (MZ) and 116 dizygotic (DZ) female twin subjects aged 66-79 years was assessed with an auto-refractor (Topcon AT) and controlled by subjective refraction. Corneal refraction, anterior chamber depth and axial length were measured with a Zeiss IOL Master. Participants with eyes operated for cataract or glaucoma were excluded, but the grade of nuclear opacity was not recorded. The associations between the absolute values of AnisoSR, AnisoAST and AnisoSE with SR, AST, SE, corneal refractive power (CR), corneal astigmatism (CAST), anterior chamber depth (ACD) and axial length (AL) and with their interocular differences were calculated. When calculating the interdependencies of the differences, the real and absolute differences between the right and left eye were used.

RESULTS

Means ± standard deviations for AnisoSR, AnisoAST and AnisoSE were 0.67 ± 0.92 D, 0.42 ± 0.41 D and 0.65 ± 0.71 D, respectively. AnisoSR, AnisoAST and AnisoSE >1.0 D were present in 14.7%, 4.2% and 17.7% of cases, respectively. Anisometropia of spherical refraction (AnisoSR), AnisoAST and AnisoSE were higher the more negative the values of SR or SE. Hyperopic ametropia did not increase these anisometropia values. The correlations of AnisoSR and AnisoSE with the absolute values of interocular differences in CR and AL were non-significant. Using the real values of the interocular differences, the respective correlations were significant. The correlation between the real interocular differences in CR and AL was negative (r = -0.258, p < 0.001). Thus, the combined effect of the real interocular differences in CR and AL was a decrease in AnisoSR and AnisoSE (emmetropization).

CONCLUSION

Higher AnisoSR and AnisoSE were associated with more myopic refraction and longer AL. Higher AnisoAST was associated with more negative SR and higher AST and CAST. The negative correlation between real interocular differences in CR and AL indicated their influence of emmetropization in AnisoSR and AnisoSE.

Association between Ocular Sensory Dominance and Refractive Error Asymmetry

Purpose

To investigate the association between ocular sensory dominance and interocular refractive error difference (IRED).

Methods

A total of 219 subjects were recruited. The refractive errors were determined by objective refraction with a fixation target located 6 meters away. 176 subjects were myopic, with 83 being anisometropic (IRED ≥ 0.75 D). 43 subjects were hyperopic, with 22 being anisometropic. Sensory dominance was measured with a continuous flashing technique with the tested eye viewing a Gabor increasing in contrast and the fellow eye viewing a Mondrian noise decreasing in contrast. The log ratio of Mondrian to Gabor’s contrasts was recorded when a subject just detected the tilting direction of the Gabor during each trial. T-test was used to compare the 50 values collected from each eye, and the t-value was used as a subject’s ocular dominance index (ODI) to quantify the degree of ocular dominance. A subject with ODI ≥ 2 (p < 0.05) had clear dominance and the eye with larger mean ratio was the dominant one. Otherwise, a subject had an unclear dominance.

Results

The anisometropic subjects had stronger ocular dominance in comparison to non-anisometropic subjects (rank-sum test, p < 0.01 for both myopic and hyperopic subjects). In anisometropic subjects with clear dominance, the amplitude of the anisometropia was correlated with ODI values (R = 0.42, p < 0.01 in myopic anisometropic subjects; R = 0.62, p < 0.01 in hyperopic anisometropic subjects). Moreover, the dominant eyes were more myopic in myopic anisometropic subjects (sign-test, p < 0.05) and less hyperopic in hyperopic anisometropic subjects (sign-test, p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The degree of ocular sensory dominance is associated with interocular refractive error difference.

The short-term accommodation response to aniso-accommodative stimuli in isometropia

PURPOSE

There have been only a limited number of studies examining the accommodative response that occurs when the two eyes are provided with disparate accommodative stimuli, and the results from these studies to date have been equivocal. In this study, we therefore aimed to examine the capacity of the visual system to aniso-accommodate by objectively measuring the interocular difference in the accommodation response between fellow dominant and non-dominant eyes under controlled monocular and binocular viewing conditions during short-term exposure to aniso-accommodative stimuli.

METHODS

The accommodative response of each eye of 16 young isometropic adults (mean age 22 ± 2 years) with normal binocular vision was measured using an open-field autorefractor during a range of testing conditions; monocularly (accommodative demands ranging from 1.97 to 2.90 D) and binocularly while altering the accommodation demand for each eye (aniso-accommodative stimuli ranging from 0.08 to 0.53 D) [Corrected].

RESULTS

Under monocular viewing conditions, the dominant and non-dominant eyes displayed a highly symmetric accommodative response; mean interocular difference in spherical equivalent 0.01 ± 0.06 D (relative) and 0.22 ± 0.06 D (absolute) (p > 0.05). During binocular viewing, the dominant eye displayed a greater accommodative response (0.11 ± 0.34 D relative and 0.24 ± 0.26 D absolute) irrespective of whether the demand of the dominant or non-dominant eye was altered (p = 0.01). Astigmatic power vectors J0 and J45 did not vary between eyes or with increasing accommodation demands under monocular or binocular viewing conditions (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The dominant and non-dominant eyes of young isometropic individuals display a similar consensual lag of accommodation under both monocular and binocular viewing conditions, with the dominant eye showing a small but significantly greater (by 0.12-0.25 D) accommodative response. Evidence of short-term aniso-accommodation in response to asymmetric accommodation demands was not observed.

Wavefront-guided versus wavefront-optimized laser in situ keratomileusis for patients with myopia: a prospective randomized contralateral eye study

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical outcomes of wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, fellow-eye-controlled study.

METHODS

The setting was a single academic institution. The study population included 110 eyes of 55 patients with myopia with and without astigmatism. One eye of each patient was randomized to undergo wavefront-guided LASIK by the AMO Visx CustomVue S4 IR excimer laser system; the fellow eye received wavefront-optimized LASIK by the Alcon Allegretto Wave Eye-Q 400 Hz excimer laser system. Corneal flaps were constructed using the Intralase FS 60 Hz femtosecond laser. Patients were followed at postoperative months 1, 3, 6, and 12. The study's main outcome measures were uncorrected visual acuity, stability of refractive correction, contrast sensitivity, and wavefront aberrometry.

RESULTS

After 12 months, LASIK eyes had achieved visual acuity of 20/12.5 or better (30 eyes, 56%) in the wavefront-guided group compared to those receiving wavefront-optimized treatment (22 eyes, 41%) (P = 0.016). Average spherical equivalent refractions were -0.13 ± 0.46 diopters in wavefront-guided eyes whereas in wavefront-optimized eyes the refractions were -0.41 ± 0.38 diopters at 12 months. Wavefront-guided eyes also achieved better best-corrected visual acuity at both the 5% and 25% contrast levels (P = 0.022 and P = 0.004, respectively). There were no differences in levels of residual astigmatism (P = 0.798) or in higher order aberrations (P = 0.869).

CONCLUSIONS

Both wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized treatments are able to correct myopia safely and effectively in eyes with and without astigmatism. However, wavefront-guided treatment platforms appear to offer significant advantages in terms of residual refractive error, uncorrected distance acuity and contrast sensitivity.

The relationship between anisometropia and amblyopia

This review aims to disentangle cause and effect in the relationship between anisometropia and amblyopia. Specifically, we examine the literature for evidence to support different possible developmental sequences that could ultimately lead to the presentation of both conditions. The prevalence of anisometropia is around 20% for an inter-ocular difference of 0.5D or greater in spherical equivalent refraction, falling to 2-3%, for an inter-ocular difference of 3D or above. Anisometropia prevalence is relatively high in the weeks following birth, in the teenage years coinciding with the onset of myopia and, most notably, in older adults starting after the onset of presbyopia. It has about one-third the prevalence of bilateral refractive errors of the same magnitude. Importantly, the prevalence of anisometropia is higher in highly ametropic groups, suggesting that emmetropization failures underlying ametropia and anisometropia may be similar. Amblyopia is present in 1-3% of humans and around one-half to two-thirds of amblyopes have anisometropia either alone or in combination with strabismus. The frequent co-existence of amblyopia and anisometropia at a child's first clinical examination promotes the belief that the anisometropia has caused the amblyopia, as has been demonstrated in animal models of the condition. In reviewing the human and monkey literature however it is clear that there are additional paths beyond this classic hypothesis to the co-occurrence of anisometropia and amblyopia. For example, after the emergence of amblyopia secondary to either deprivation or strabismus, anisometropia often follows. In cases of anisometropia with no apparent deprivation or strabismus, questions remain about the failure of the emmetropization mechanism that routinely eliminates infantile anisometropia. Also, the chronology of amblyopia development is poorly documented in cases of 'pure' anisometropic amblyopia. Although indirect, the therapeutic impact of refractive correction on anisometropic amblyopia provides strong support for the hypothesis that the anisometropia caused the amblyopia. Direct evidence for the aetiology of anisometropic amblyopia will require longitudinal tracking of at-risk infants, which poses numerous methodological and ethical challenges. However, if we are to prevent this condition, we must understand the factors that cause it to develop.

The horizontal dark oculomotor rest position

BACKGROUND

This study sought to investigate whether eye dominance and age are related to the stimulus-free oculomotor resting state described via the dark disconjugate position (near or far), the dark conjugate position (left to right), and the near dissociated phoria.

METHODS

Nineteen non-presbyopes and 25 presbyopes with normal binocular vision participated in two identical sessions. The left-eye and the right-eye positions were recorded using a video-based infrared eye tracker while the subjects were in total darkness. Dark disconjugate responses and dark conjugate responses were calculated by computing the difference and the average of the left-eye and the right-eye response, respectively. The right-eye decaying to the phoria level was recorded for 15 s.

RESULTS

A one-way ANOVA assessed statistical differences in dark conjugate and dark disconjugate positions, comparing 1) the right-eye and the left-eye sensory and/or motor dominant groups and 2) the non-presbyope and presbyope groups. The test-retests of the dark disconjugate position, the dark conjugate position and the near dissociated heterophoria were high between sessions (r > 0.85; p < 0.00001). For non-presbyopes the right-eye (left-eye) motor and sensory dominant subjects showed a rightward (leftward) dark conjugate position (p < 0.01). The dark disconjugate position was receded in presbyopes compared to non-presbyopes (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The data support that the left-eye, or the right-eye, motor and sensory dominance predicts the direction of the dark conjugate position. Future studies could investigate the underlying neural substrates that may, in part, contribute to the resting state of the oculomotor system in a stimulus-free environment. Knowledge of the brain-behavior governing visual-field preference has implications for understanding the natural aging process of the visual system.