Central corneal thickness in Latinos.

PURPOSE: To characterize central corneal thickness (CCT) in Latinos aged 40 or more years. METHODS: A population-based cohort of Latinos from two census tracts in La Puente, California, underwent measurements of CCT and intraocular pressure (IOP). CCT was measured with an ultrasonic pachymeter, and IOP was measured by applanation tonometry. One eye of each of 1699 participants was included in the analyses. RESULTS: The mean (+/-SD) CCT was 546.9 +/- 33.5 micro m. Older participants (>or=70 years) had significantly thinner CCs compared with participants 40 to 49 years of age (P < 0.05). Eyes with ocular hypertension had thicker CCs than did normal and glaucomatous eyes (P < 0.05). Multivariate adaptive regression spline analyses and analysis of variance contrasting IOP subgroups revealed that eyes with thinner CCs had lower IOP than did eyes with thicker CCs (P < 0.001). The absolute range of interocular differences in CCT in the same subject was as high as 24 micro m. CONCLUSIONS: On average, CCT in Latinos was less than that previously reported in whites but greater than that reported in African Americans and Asians. Older Latinos had thinner corneas compared with younger Latinos. Asymmetry in CCT of 25 micro m or more should be evaluated for potential corneal disease. Spline analyses suggest that although the relationship between IOP and CCT is best explained by a nonlinear equation, when measuring IOP with the Goldmann tonometer, it is likely that IOP is underestimated in eyes with thinner CCs and overestimated in eyes with thicker CCs.

Binocular visual acuity summation and inhibition in an ocular epidemiological study: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study.

PURPOSE: To characterize binocular visual acuity summation and inhibition in participants of a population-based ocular epidemiologic study. METHODS: A complete ophthalmic examination of Latinos, aged 40 or more years, measured binocular and monocular distance visual acuities by a standard early-treatment diabetic retinopathy study (ETDRS) protocol. The proportions of participants who demonstrated binocular summation (i.e., binocular visual acuity was better than the better eye visual acuity by five or more letters), binocular inhibition (i.e., binocular visual acuity was worse than the better eye visual acuity by five or more letters), and visual impairment (visual acuity worse than 20/40) were calculated. RESULTS: In 1831 individuals, on average, binocular visual acuity was better than better eye visual acuity. Prevalence rates of binocular summation and inhibition were 21% and 2%, respectively. Compared with participants less than 65 years old or those with equivalent interocular visual acuity, older participants (> or =65 years) and those with interocular differences in visual acuity were more likely to demonstrate binocular inhibition (P < 0.01). The rate of visual impairment was significantly lower, when using binocular visual acuity than when using better eye or the American Medical Association (AMA) algorithm (5.2% vs. 6.9% and 9.5%, respectively P < 0.01). Participants with binocular inhibition had greater self-reported problems with driving activities (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The large proportion of individuals demonstrating binocular summation and inhibition suggests that in clinical or research settings, binocular visual acuity should be considered a primary measure of visual impairment, because it better equates the state in which the person usually functions.