Cross-sectional study examines CCT and refractive error in rural Nigerian children, indicating no significant associations discovered.
Background: Central corneal thickness (CCT) is an important ocular biometric parameter that influences intraocular pressure measurement and refractive status interpretation. Variations in CCT have been reported across age, gender, ethnicity, and refractive error; however, data on pediatric populations in rural Nigerian settings remain limited. This study investigated the association between central corneal thickness and refractive error among school-aged children in Isuikwuato LGA, Abia State, Nigeria. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted involving 450 children aged 10-18 years. All participants underwent comprehensive ocular examinations including cycloplegic refraction and CCT measurement using ultrasound pachymetry. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, independent t-tests, and one-way ANOVA at p<0.05 significance level. Results: Mean CCT values were 537.5 ± 24.6 µm in the right eye and 538.0 ± 24.1 µm in the left eye. Females showed slightly higher mean CCT values than males (539.5 µm vs 536.2 µm), but the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.15). Children aged 10-12 years had marginally higher CCT values than older age groups, though no significant age-related differences were observed (p=0.60 for OD, p=0.11 for OS). Hyperopic participants recorded higher mean CCT values (539.9 µm) than emmetropic (537.8 µm) and myopic children (536.4 µm), but these variations were not statistically significant (p=0.50). Conclusion: Central corneal thickness among school-aged children in Isuikwuato LGA is within normal limits and shows no significant association with age, gender, or refractive error status. These findings provide valuable baseline data for pediatric ocular health assessment in rural Nigerian settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
AC et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: