{"title":"Medial rectus insertion site in cases of acute acquired comitant esotropia associated with excessive digital device usage.","authors":"Ayaka Yagasaki, Teiji Yagasaki, Yoshimi Yokoyama","doi":"10.1007/s10384-024-01113-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the distance of the medial rectus muscle insertion to the limbus (DMIL) between patients with acute acquired comitant esotropia (AACE) associated with excessive digital device usage (EDDU) and exotropic patients.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The medical records of 72 eyes of 44 patients with EDDU were retrospectively analyzed. The DMIL was measured from the anterior part at the midpoint of the medial rectus muscle insertion into the anterior limbus using a caliper after dissecting the medial rectus muscle with two control sutures at 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock. The DMIL in the non-fixation eye was compared between 44 patients with AACE and 23 patients with exotropia.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean daily EDDU was 6.5 ± 3.1 h. The mean cycloplegic refractive errors (spherical equivalent: SE) were - 3.18 ± 2.52 diopters (D) OD and - 3.03 ± 2.42 D OS. The mean DMIL in the 72 eyes of 44 patients with AACE associated with EDDU was 4.30 ± 0.66 mm. The difference in DMIL of non-fixation eyes between 44 AACE patients and 23 exotropic patients was significant (4.28 ± 0.65 mm vs. 5.28 ± 0.50 mm, p < 0.0001). However, the SE in 44 non-dominant eyes of AACE was - 3.08 ± 2.56 D, significantly stronger than - 1.22 ± 1.93 D in the 23 exotropic eyes (p = 0.008).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>DMIL in patients with AACE associated with EDDU was significantly shorter. This anatomical anomaly may be an etiology of AACE associated with EDDU.</p>","PeriodicalId":14563,"journal":{"name":"Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10384-024-01113-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the distance of the medial rectus muscle insertion to the limbus (DMIL) between patients with acute acquired comitant esotropia (AACE) associated with excessive digital device usage (EDDU) and exotropic patients.
Study design: Retrospective study.
Methods: The medical records of 72 eyes of 44 patients with EDDU were retrospectively analyzed. The DMIL was measured from the anterior part at the midpoint of the medial rectus muscle insertion into the anterior limbus using a caliper after dissecting the medial rectus muscle with two control sutures at 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock. The DMIL in the non-fixation eye was compared between 44 patients with AACE and 23 patients with exotropia.
Results: The mean daily EDDU was 6.5 ± 3.1 h. The mean cycloplegic refractive errors (spherical equivalent: SE) were - 3.18 ± 2.52 diopters (D) OD and - 3.03 ± 2.42 D OS. The mean DMIL in the 72 eyes of 44 patients with AACE associated with EDDU was 4.30 ± 0.66 mm. The difference in DMIL of non-fixation eyes between 44 AACE patients and 23 exotropic patients was significant (4.28 ± 0.65 mm vs. 5.28 ± 0.50 mm, p < 0.0001). However, the SE in 44 non-dominant eyes of AACE was - 3.08 ± 2.56 D, significantly stronger than - 1.22 ± 1.93 D in the 23 exotropic eyes (p = 0.008).
Conclusion: DMIL in patients with AACE associated with EDDU was significantly shorter. This anatomical anomaly may be an etiology of AACE associated with EDDU.
期刊介绍:
The Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology (JJO) was inaugurated in 1957 as a quarterly journal published in English by the Ophthalmology Department of the University of Tokyo, with the aim of disseminating the achievements of Japanese ophthalmologists worldwide. JJO remains the only Japanese ophthalmology journal published in English. In 1997, the Japanese Ophthalmological Society assumed the responsibility for publishing the Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology as its official English-language publication.
Currently the journal is published bimonthly and accepts papers from authors worldwide. JJO has become an international interdisciplinary forum for the publication of basic science and clinical research papers.