Mean Macular Volume in Normal Korean Eyes Measured by Spectral-domain Optical Coherence Tomography

PURPOSE: To evaluate the mean macular volume in normal Korean eyes using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. METHODS: The present study consisted of 132 patients (212 eyes) with no ophthalmic evidence of retinopathy and who had a best corrected visual acuity of 1.0 or better. The total macular volume was measured using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography and was analyzed according to age group, sex, degree of refractive error and presence of systemic disease such as diabetes and hypertension. RESULTS: The mean total macular volume of all subjects was 10.07 +/- 0.45 mm3, with means of 10.13 +/- 0.40 mm3, 10.05 +/- 0.43 mm3 and 9.97 +/- 0.58 mm3 measured for the respective A, B, and C age groups. There was a significant difference between male and female patients. In addition, there was a significant difference between diabetic patients in group C and normal subjects. However, there was no significant difference according to degree of refractive error. CONCLUSIONS: The measured value of mean macular volume in normal Korean eyes can be expected to provide a standard value for diagnosing retinal disease and the need for careful follow-up.

Clinical Features of Ocular Disabilities

PURPOSE: To describe the characteristics of the disabled patients visiting the eye clinic in our institute. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective analysis of 35 cases in our clinic from April 2004 to June 2008 using the McBride disability evaluation. We investigated the clinical features and the causes of disorders through visual acuity, visual field and ocular motility. RESULTS: Thirty-three (94.3%) of the 35 patients had disabilities due to trauma; twelve (34.3%) of them were caused by traffic accidents, and 21 (60%) of them were due to blows or lacerations. Other causes of disability were glaucoma and retinal break (5.8%). Nine patients (25.7%) had abnormal findings in the visual field examination, and nine other patients (25.7%) had limitations in ocular motility. Twenty-eight patients (80%) had decreased visual acuity, and nine (25.7%) had multiple symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the contribution of disability estimation of visual field and ocular motility in McBride disability evaluations, we considered the importance of repetitive examinations and evaluations. When patients complained of unexplained decreased visual acuity with no anatomical abnormalities, multifocal ERG and multifocal VEP should be considered in order to distinguish it from malingering or functional visual loss.