Photophobia and disability glare in adult patients with Marfan syndrome: a case–control study

Purpose The aim of the present study was to investigate photophobia and disability glare in adult patients with Marfan syndrome (MFS). Methods In this case–control study, 44 patients with MFS (87 eyes) were compared to 44 controls (88 eyes), who were matched for age and sex. The subjects were asked...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Acta ophthalmologica (Oxford, England) England), 2022-05, Vol.100 (3), p.337-343
Main Authors: Sandvik, Gunhild Falleth, Rand‐Hendriksen, Svend, Drolsum, Liv, Kristianslund, Olav
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Case-Control Studies
Cataract
Cataracts
Cornea
disability glare
Glare
Humans
Iris
Light
Marfan syndrome
Marfan Syndrome - complications
Marfan Syndrome - diagnosis
ocular straylight
Patients
photophobia
Photophobia - diagnosis
Photophobia - etiology
Scandals
Scattering, Radiation
Visual Acuity
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose The aim of the present study was to investigate photophobia and disability glare in adult patients with Marfan syndrome (MFS). Methods In this case–control study, 44 patients with MFS (87 eyes) were compared to 44 controls (88 eyes), who were matched for age and sex. The subjects were asked to grade their photophobia and glare using 10‐cm visual analogue scales (VAS), which were marked with ‘never’ at zero and ‘always’ at 10 ‐cm. In addition, disability glare was measured with C‐Quant straylight meter. Results The patients with MFS had significantly higher VAS scores than the controls in four out of seven statements related to photophobia and glare. When including cataract, spherical equivalent, iris colour, axial length and corneal curvature, three of the seven statements were still significantly different between the two groups. The mean straylight values were 1.29 ± 0.03 log(s) in the MFS group and 1.01 ± 0.03 log(s) in the control group (p 
ISSN:1755-375X
1755-3768
DOI:10.1111/aos.14935