Distribution of mid-peripheral cones in emmetropic and myopic subjects using adaptive optics flood illumination camera.

PURPOSE

We measured in vivo cone photoreceptors up to 24° of eccentricity along the horizontal meridian of healthy human retina. We also investigated the impact on cone densities of axial eye length elongation occurring with myopia.

METHODS

Using a flood illumination device coupled with an adaptive optics system, rtx1™, ( www.imagine-eyes.com), 55 right healthy retinas were imaged along the horizontal (i.e. nasal and temporal) meridian over a 48° field (i.e. from 3° to 24° each 3°). Then, cones were manually detected within 80 × 80 pixel regions of interest. Cone density and packing geometry (i.e. number of neighbours) were calculated (AOdetect software™). Subjects were divided into three groups: a group of 36 emmetropic (i.e. refractive error from -0.25D to +0.50D) subjects; a group of 10 low myopic subjects (i.e. refractive error from -0.50D to -2.50D); and a group of nine high myopic subjects (i.e. >-2.50D).

RESULTS

Cone density decreased with eccentricity in both semi-meridians. The decrease in cone photoreceptors occurred mainly in the first 9°. The difference of cone density between the nasal and temporal semi-meridian increased with eccentricity from 0.6% at 3° to 26% at 24°. Average cone density of emmetropes (850 cones deg or 11 087 cones mm ), low myopes (830 cones deg or 9731 cones mm ), and high myopes (912 cones deg or 9744 cones mm ), suggested that the retinas of the high myopic subjects were more stretched than the low myopic subjects retinas and even more stretched than that of the emmetropes. The axial eyeball elongation (square of the ratio of the axial eye length of 9%) seems to explain the cone density (11%) difference between emmetropes and low myopes. However, while the eyeball elongation between low and high myopes is still important (i.e. 11%), cone density difference between both populations was negligible (i.e. 3%). The ratio of cone density varied from -17% to 22% as a function of eccentricity involving that the retinal stretching is not uniform along the horizontal meridian.

CONCLUSION

The difference of cone density (i.e. cone mm ) between groups supports the hypothesis that the retina is stretched with the eyeball elongation. However, this elongation does not seem to be uniform along the horizontal meridian favouring the hypothesis of a local elongation of the retina.