Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness and Optic Disc Parameters in Dominant Compared with Non-Dominant Eyes

Soo Lee Min; Jin Cho Kyong; Hyung Cho Woo; Eun Kyung Sung; Hwan Chang Moo

doi:10.3341/jkos.2013.54.5.784

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.54(5) > 1009681

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Min, Kyong, Woo, Sung, and Moo: Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness and Optic Disc Parameters in Dominant Compared with Non-Dominant Eyes

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2013;54(5):784-788.

Published online: 7 September 2013

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2013.54.5.784

Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness and Optic Disc Parameters in Dominant Compared with Non-Dominant Eyes

Soo Lee Min, MD, Jin Cho Kyong, MD, Hyung Cho Woo, MD, Eun Kyung Sung, MD, PhD, Hwan Chang Moo, MD, PhD

¹Department of Ophthalmology, Dankook University Medical College, Cheonan, Korea

Address reprint requests to Moo Hwan Chang, MD, PhD Department of Ophthalmology, Dankook University Hospital #201 Manghyang-ro, Dongnam-gu, Cheonan 330-715, Korea Tel: 82-41-550-6497, Fax: 82-41-551-0137, E-mail: changmh@dankook.ac.kr

Received 31 August 201212 December 2012 Accepted 8 April 2013

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the comparison of retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness and optic disc parameters measured by optical coherence tomography (Cirrus HD-OCT^®) in dominant and non-dominant eyes.

Methods

Seventy-one subjects without underlying ocular disease were recruited for the present study. Ocular dominance was determined using the hole-in-the-card test. Comprehensive standardized eye examinations were performed. Scans of the optic disc and RNFL were performed using OCT.

Results

The mean intraocular pressure (IOP) of the dominant eye was higher than its counterpart ( p = 0.025). No sig-nificant differences were observed in uncorrected visual acuity, refractive error and axial length between dominant and non-dominant eyes ( p = 0.235, 0.180, 0.850). No RNFL and optic disc features were identified in the dominant from non-dominant eyes.

Conclusions

Although dominant eyes tended to have higher IOP than non-dominant eyes, no consistent ocular structural differences between dominant and non-dominant eyes with the use of OCT were found.

Keywords: Dominant eye, Non-dominant eye, OCT, Ocular dominance, RNFL

References

1. Porac C, Coren S. The dominant eye. Psychol Bull. 1976; 83:880–97.

2. Mapp AP, Ono H, Barbeito R. What does the dominant eye domi-nate? A brief and somewhat contentious review. Percept Psychophys. 2003; 65:310–7.

3. Waheed K, Laidlaw DA. Disease laterality, eye dominance, and visual handicap in patients with unilateral full thickness macular holes. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003; 87:626–8.

4. Jain S, Arora I, Azar DT. Success of monovision in presbyopes: Review of the literature and potential applications to refractive surgery. Surv Ophthalmol. 1996; 40:491–9.

5. Wright KW, Guemes A, Kapadia MS, Wilson SE. Binocular func-tion and patient satisfaction after monovision induced by myopic photorefractive keratectomy. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999; 25:177–82.

6. Back A, Grant T, Hine N. Comparative visual performance of three presbyopic contact lens corrections. Optom Vis Sci. 1992; 69:474–80.

7. Koo BS, Cho YA. The relationship of dominant eye, dominant hand, and deviated eye in strabismus. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1996; 37:1277–82.

8. Asakawa K, Ishikawa H, Kawamorita T, et al. Effects of ocular dominance and visual input on body. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2007; 51:375–8.

9. Duke-Elder WS. The physiology of the eye and of vision: System of ophthalmology. St Louis: CV Mosby;1968. v. 4:p. p 687.

10. Choi JS, Ko CJ. A study on dominant eye. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1983; 24:459–62.

11. Fink WH. The dominant eye: its clinical significance. Arch Ophthalmol. 1938; 19:555–82.

12. Cheng CY, Yen MY, Lin HY, et al. Association of ocular domi-nance and anisometropic myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004; 45:2856–60.

13. Rice ML, Leske DA, Smestad CE, Holmes JM. Results of ocular dominance testing depend on assessment method. J AAPOS. 2008; 12:365–9.

14. Samarawickrama C, Wang JJ, Huynh SC, et al. Macular thickness, retinal thickness, and optic disk parameters in dominant compared with nondominant eyes. J AAPOS. 2009; 13:142–7.

15. Chia A, Jaurigue A, Gazzard G, et al. Ocular dominance, laterality, and refraction in Singaporean children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007; 48:3533–6.

16. Ehrenstein WH, Arnold-Schulz-Gahmen BE, Jaschinski W. Eye preference within the context of binocular functions. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005; 243:926–32.

17. Cho KJ, Kim SY, Yang SW. The refractive errors of dominant and non-dominant eyes. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2009; 50:275–9.

18. Gur RC, Turetsky BI, Matsui M, et al. Sex differences in brain gray and white matter in healthy young adults: correlations with cogni-tive performance. J Neurosci. 1999; 19:4065–72.

19. Hiscock M, Israelian M, Inch R, et al. Is there a sex difference in human laterality. An exhaustive survey of visual laterality studies from six neuropsychology journals. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1995; 17:590–610.

20. Geschwind DH, Miller BL, DeCarli C, Carmelli D. Heritability of lobar brain volumes in twins supports genetic models of cerebral laterality and handedness. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2002; 99:3176–81.

21. Greaves DP, Perkins ES. Influence of the sympathetic nervous sys-tem on the intra-ocular pressure and vascular circulation of the eye. Br J Ophthalmol. 1952; 36:258–64.

22. Langham ME, Rosenthal AR. Role of the cervical sympathetic nerve in regulating intraocular pressure and circulation. Am J Physiol. 1966; 210:786–94.

23. Savini G, Zanini M, Carelli V, et al. Correlation between retinal nerve fibre layer thickness and optic nerve head size: an optical co-herence tomography study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005; 89:489–92.

24. Ha DW, Sung K, Kim S, et al. Interocular comparison of nerve fi-ber layer thickness and its relation with optic disc size in normal subjects. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2002; 16:8–12.

25. Repka MX, Goldenberg-Cohen N, Edwards AR. Retinal nerve fi-ber layer thickness in amblyopic eyes. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006; 142:247–51.

26. Yoon SW, Park WH, Baek SH, Kong SM. Thicknesses of macular retinal layer and peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer in patients with hyperopic anisometropic amblyopia. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2005; 19:62–7.

27. Yen MY, Cheng CY, Wang AG. Retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in unilateral amblyopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004; 45:2224–30.

Table 1.

Uncorrected visual acuity (log MAR), mean refraction (diopters, D), axial length (mm), and intraocular pressure (mm Hg) in dominant and nondominant eyes

	Dominant eye	Nondominant eye	Mean difference^*	p-value
Uncorrected Visual Acuity (log MAR)	0.77 ± 0.60	0.74 ± 0.58	0.027	0.235
Refraction (D)	-3.76 ± 3.03	-3.66 ± 3.18	-0.105	0.180
Axial length (mm)	25.63 ± 1.25	25.66 ± 1.88	-0.282	0.850
Intraocular Pressure (mm Hg)	13.77 ± 2.63	13.27 ± 2.50	0.507	0.030

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

^* Mean of dominant measurement less the nondominant measurement of each person.

Table 2.

Mean difference^* in retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness between dominant and nondominant eyes

Measure	Dominant eye	Nondominant eye	Mean difference^*	p-value
Average (μ m)	92.92 ± 8.78	93.25 ± 8.79	-0.338	0.625
Superior quadrant (μ m)	115.79 ± 16.05	116.94 ± 17.84	-1.155	0.459
Inferior quadrant (μ m)	116.80 ± 16.08	117.38 ± 15.13	-0.577	0.674
Nasal quadrant (μ m)	75.41 ± 16.24	75.82 ± 15.66	-0.408	0.809
Temporal quadrant (μ m)	63.04 ± 9.26	63.06 ± 9.34	-0.014	0.990

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

^* Mean of dominant less nondominant measurement of each person.

Table 3.

Mean difference^* in optic disc parameters between dominant and nondominant eyes

Measure	Dominant eye (range)	Nondominant eye (range)	Mean difference^*	p-value
Average Cup/disc ratio	0.44 ± 0.17	0.44 ± 0.17	0.004	0.763
	(0.07-0.71)	(0.07-0.72)
Vertical Cup/disc ratio	0.41 ± 0.17	0.41 ± 0.16	0.001	0.949
	(0.05-0.73)	(0.06-0.67)
Neuroretinal rim area (mm²)	1.289 ± 0.228	1.294 ± 0.240	-0.005	0.800
	(0.86-2.35)	(0.80-2.22)
Disc area (mm²)	1.718 ± 0.367	1.723 ± 0.399	-0.005	0.859
	(1.02-2.95)	(1.13-3.22)
Cup volume (mm³)	0.128 ± 0.121	0.128 ± 0.129	0.000	0.976
	(0.000-0.539)	(0.000-0.634)

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

^* Mean of dominant less nondominant measurement of each person.

TOOLS

Similar articles