Abstract
Purpose
To examine the changes in the pupillary light response after phacoemulsification and to compare the difference in the response among patients in different age categories.
Study design
Prospective observational study.
Methods
Four-hundred twenty-two eyes of 422 patients in 3 age categories (60-69 years, 70-79 years, and 80-89 years) scheduled for phacoemulsification were consecutively enrolled. The eyes underwent examinations with an infrared pupillometer to obtain the parameters of the pupillary light response preoperatively and at 1 day and 1 and 3 months postoperatively. Differences in the parameters of the pupillary response were compared among 4 time intervals and the 3 age categories.
Results
The mean maximum and minimum pupillary diameters significantly decreased at 1 day postoperatively and returned to the preoperative level by 1 month postoperatively (P<.0001). The mean percentage of pupillary constriction was significantly reduced at 1 and 3 months postoperatively compared with preoperatively and at 1 day postoperatively (P<.0001). The average pupillary constriction and dilation velocities were significantly lower at 1 and 3 months postoperatively than they were preoperatively and at 1 day postoperatively (P<.0001). The latency to constriction did not differ significantly among the time intervals. The percentage of pupillary constriction was significantly smaller, and the average constriction and dilation velocities were lower in association with higher age categories at all time intervals (P≤.0185).
Conclusion
The pupillary light response was impaired several months after cataract surgery and worsened with increasing patient age, indicating that cataract surgery may compromise the pupillary constriction and dilation functions in association with age.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Shindler KS, Revere K, Dutt M, Ying GS, Chung DC. In vivo detection of experimental optic neuritis by pupillometry. Exp Eye Res. 2012;100:1–6.
Chang DS, Arora KS, Boland MV, Supakontanasan W, Friedman DS. Development and validation of an associative model for the detection of glaucoma using pupillography. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156:1285–96.
Maynard ML, Zele AJ, Feigl B. Melanopsin-mediated post-illumination pupil response in early age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015;56:6906–13.
Kardon R, Anderson SC, Damarjian TG, Grace EM, Stone E, Kawasaki A. Chromatic pupillometry in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:376–81.
Feigl B, Zele AJ, Fader SM, Howes AN, Hughes CE, Jones KA, et al. The post-illumination pupil response of melanopsin-expressing intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells in diabetes. Acta Ophthalmol. 2012;90:e230–4.
Van Stavern GP, Bei L, Shui YB, Huecker J, Gordon M. Pupillary light reaction in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease subjects compared with normal ageing controls. Br J Ophthalmol. 2019;103:971–5.
Oh AJ, Amore G, Sultan W, Asanad S, Park JC, Romagnoli M, et al. Pupillometry evaluation of melanopsin retinal ganglion cell function and sleep-wake activity in pre-symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0226197.
Batawi H, Micieli JA. Adie’s tonic pupil presenting with unilateral photophobia successfully treated with dilute pilocarpine. BMJ Case Rep. 2020;13:e233136.
Gross JR, McClelland CM, Lee MS. An approach to anisocoria. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2016;27:486–92.
Zhao F, Han T, Chen X, Chen Z, Zheng K, Wang X, et al. Minimum pupil in pupillary response to light and myopia affect disk halo size: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e019914.
Al-Hashimi S, Donaldson K, Davidson R, Dhaliwal D, Jackson M, Kieval JZ, et al. Medical and surgical management of the small pupil during cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2018;44:1032–41.
Kershner RM. Management of the small pupil for clear corneal cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002;28:1826–31.
Duffin RM, Pettit TH, Straatsma BR. Maintenance of mydriasis with epinephrine during cataract surgery. Ophthalmic Surg. 1983;14:41–5.
Hayashi K, Hayashi H. Pupil size before and after phacoemulsification in nondiabetic and diabetic patients. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004;30:2543–50.
Peters DR, Tychsen L. Recovery of pupillomotor function after cataract surgery. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1989;60:586–8.
Komatsu M, Oono S, Shimizu K. The effects of phaco-emulsification-aspiration and intra-ocular lens implantation on the pupil: pupillographic and pharmacologic study. Ophthalmologica. 1997;211:332–7.
Bitsios P, Prettyman R, Szabadi E. Changes in autonomic function with age: a study of pupillary kinetics in healthy young and old people. Age Ageing. 1996;25:432–8.
Kasthurirangan S, Glasser A. Age related changes in the characteristics of the near pupil response. Vision Res. 2006;46:1393–403.
Herbst K, Sander B, Lund-Andersen H, Broendsted AE, Kessel L, Hansen MS, et al. Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cell function in relation to age: a pupillometric study in humans with special reference to the age-related optic properties of the lens. BMC Ophthalmol. 2012;12:4.
Adhikari P, Pearson CA, Anderson AM, Zele AJ, Feigl B. Effect of age and refractive error on the melanopsin mediated post-illumination pupil response (PIPR). Sci Rep. 2015;5:17610.
Bremner FD. Pupillometric evaluation of the dynamics of the pupillary response to a brief light stimulus in healthy subjects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:7343–7.
Asakawa K, Nanno M, Ishikawa H, Shoji N. Evaluation of pupil fields using a newly developed head-mounted perimeter in healthy subjects. J Glaucoma. 2018;27:807–15.
Hayashi K, Yoshida M, Hirata A, Yoshimura K. Changes in shape and astigmatism of total, anterior, and posterior cornea after long versus short clear corneal incision cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2018;44:39–49.
Asakawa K, Ishikawa H. Reproducibility and normative values of the parameters of a new hand-held digital pupillometer. J Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017;8:1000654.
Zhao W, Stutzman S, DaiWai O, Saju C, Wilson M, Aiyagari V. Inter-device reliability of the NPi-100 pupillometer. J Clin Neurosci. 2016;33:79–82.
Perkins ES. Influence of the fifth cranial nerve on the intra-ocular pressure of the rabbit eye. Br J Ophthalmol. 1957;41:257–300.
Kottow MH, Seligman LJ. Consensual reactions to anterior chamber paracentesis in the rabbit. Am J Ophthalmol. 1978;85:392–9.
Araie M, Sawa M, Takase M. Effect of topical indomethacin on the blood-aqueous barrier after intracapsular extraction of senile cataract: a fluorophotometric study. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 1981;25:237–47.
Asakawa K, Ito A, Kobayashi H, Iwai A, Ito C, Ishikawa H. Adaptation time, electroretinography, and pupillography in healthy subjects. Doc Ophthalmol. 2019;139:33–44.
de Silva SR, Evans JR, Kirthi V, Ziaei M, Leyland M. Multifocal versus monofocal intraocular lenses after cataract extraction. Cochrane Database Sys Rev. 2016;12:CD003169.
Kamiya K, Hayashi K, Shimizu K, Negishi K, Sato M, Bissen-Miyajima H, et al. Multifocal intraocular lens explantation: a case series of 50 eyes. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;158:215–20.
Puell MC, Pérez-Carrasco MJ, Hurtado-Ceña FJ, Álvarez-Rementería L. Disk halo size measured in individuals with monofocal versus diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41:2417–23.
LoBue SA, Mano F, Schaefer E, LoBue TD. Unilateral multifocal intraocular lens implantation in a patient with Adie’s pupil. Case Rep Ophthalmol. 2018;9:369–74.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Koji Yonemoto, PhD (Ryukyu University, Naha, Japan), for statistical assistance.
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
K. Hayashi, None; M. Yoshida, None; S. Ishiyama, None; A. Hirata, None.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Corresponding Author: Ken Hayashi.
About this article
Cite this article
Hayashi, K., Yoshida, M., Ishiyama, S. et al. Pupillary light response after cataract surgery in healthy patients. Jpn J Ophthalmol 65, 616–623 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10384-021-00837-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10384-021-00837-5