Comparison of structural and vascular characteristics of the macula in dominant and non-dominant eyes
Résumé fourni par la source
Purpose: This study aimed to compare dominant and non-dominant eyes of healthy individuals with swept-source optical coherence tomography angiography (SS-OCTA) to evaluate the effect of ocular dominance on macular and choroidal microcirculation. Materials and Methods:Eighty eyes of 40 healthy participants were included in the study.Ocular dominance was determined with the hole in the card test.Participants' handedness was also noted.Superficial foveal avascular zone, deep foveal avascular zone, superficial capillary plexus density, deep capillary plexus density, choriocapillaris vascular complex density were measured with SS-OCTA.Central macular thickness (CMT) and subfoveal choroidal thickness (SFCT) values were recorded.Results: The mean age of the participants was 23.95±3.39years.It was determined that 65.5% (n=26) of the patients had a right eye dominance and 35.0%(n=14) had a left eye dominance.Thirty-six (90%) individuals were right-handed and 4 (10%) were left-handed.There was no significant difference in OCTA parameters and CMT, SFCT measurements between dominant and non-dominant eyes of the participants (p>0.05).Likewise, there was no difference between right and left eyes (p>0.05).Conclusion: Ocular dominance was found to be mostly in the right eye.There was no significant difference in the structural and vascular characteristics of the macula between dominant and non-dominant eyes with the use of SS-OCTA.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Comparison of structural and vascular characteristics of the macula in dominant and non-dominant eyes
- Date Crossref
- 01/01/2025
- Éditeur
- Gazi Goz Vakfi
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.