Defective angles of localized retinal nerve fiber layer reflect the severity of visual field defect- a cross-sectional analysis.
Aged
Cross-Sectional Studies
Female
Glaucoma, Open-Angle
/ diagnosis
Humans
Intraocular Pressure
/ physiology
Male
Middle Aged
Nerve Fibers
/ pathology
Optic Nerve Diseases
/ diagnosis
Photography
Retinal Ganglion Cells
/ pathology
Scotoma
/ physiopathology
Tomography, Optical Coherence
Tonometry, Ocular
Visual Field Tests
Visual Fields
/ physiology
Fundus photograph
Localized retinal nerve fiber layer
Visual field defect parameters
Journal
BMC ophthalmology
ISSN: 1471-2415
Titre abrégé: BMC Ophthalmol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Apr 2020
09 Apr 2020
Historique:
received:
30
03
2019
accepted:
20
03
2020
entrez:
11
4
2020
pubmed:
11
4
2020
medline:
6
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In order to detect glaucomatous optic nerve damages early on and evaluate the severity of glaucoma, a previously developed analytic method based on photographic retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) angle defect was proposed. However, the correlation between these defective angles and the severity of visual field defect has not been verified. This study aimed to confirm the correlation described above. We reviewed a total of 227 glaucomatous eyes (38 enrolled, 189 excluded) during an interval of 5 years. The angles of all eyes were measured on RNFL photograph, of which angle α is the angular width between the macula center and the proximity of RNFL defect, and angle β (+c) is the sum of angular width(s) of localized RNFL defect. The severity of visual field defect was determined by mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), and visual field index (VFI). Correlation analysis was performed on angle α and angle β (+c) with the presence of central scotoma and visual field defect parameters, respectively. Angle β (+c) showed significant correlation with MD (P = 0.007), PSD (P = 0.02), VFI (P = 0.03), and average RNFL thickness (P = 0.03). No correlation was found between angle α and the presence of central scotoma. In conclusion, measuring the angular width of localized RNFL defect is a viable method for determining the severity of visual field defect.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In order to detect glaucomatous optic nerve damages early on and evaluate the severity of glaucoma, a previously developed analytic method based on photographic retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) angle defect was proposed. However, the correlation between these defective angles and the severity of visual field defect has not been verified. This study aimed to confirm the correlation described above.
METHODS
METHODS
We reviewed a total of 227 glaucomatous eyes (38 enrolled, 189 excluded) during an interval of 5 years. The angles of all eyes were measured on RNFL photograph, of which angle α is the angular width between the macula center and the proximity of RNFL defect, and angle β (+c) is the sum of angular width(s) of localized RNFL defect. The severity of visual field defect was determined by mean deviation (MD), pattern standard deviation (PSD), and visual field index (VFI). Correlation analysis was performed on angle α and angle β (+c) with the presence of central scotoma and visual field defect parameters, respectively.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Angle β (+c) showed significant correlation with MD (P = 0.007), PSD (P = 0.02), VFI (P = 0.03), and average RNFL thickness (P = 0.03). No correlation was found between angle α and the presence of central scotoma.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, measuring the angular width of localized RNFL defect is a viable method for determining the severity of visual field defect.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32272929
doi: 10.1186/s12886-020-01396-y
pii: 10.1186/s12886-020-01396-y
pmc: PMC7147011
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
141Références
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1992;230(5):446-50
pubmed: 1521811
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004 Jun;45(6):1823-9
pubmed: 15161846
BMC Ophthalmol. 2013 Nov 05;13:67
pubmed: 24188326
J Glaucoma. 2009 Jan;18(1):6-12
pubmed: 19142128
Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2013 Sep;57(5):451-6
pubmed: 23797700
Br J Ophthalmol. 2003 Jun;87(6):695-8
pubmed: 12770963
Hippokratia. 2011 Apr;15(2):103-8
pubmed: 22110289
Br J Ophthalmol. 2000 Oct;84(10):1154-8
pubmed: 11004102
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007 Jun;48(6):2644-52
pubmed: 17525195
Bull World Health Organ. 2004 Nov;82(11):887-8
pubmed: 15640929
Ophthalmic Surg. 1987 Dec;18(12):882-9
pubmed: 3444599
Arch Ophthalmol. 1990 May;108(5):705-8
pubmed: 2334330
Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2012 May-Jun;40(4):369-80
pubmed: 22339936
Ophthalmology. 1999 Sep;106(9):1762-7
pubmed: 10485548
Clin Exp Optom. 2016 Sep;99(5):435-40
pubmed: 27452786
Ophthalmology. 1997 Jul;104(7):1126-30
pubmed: 9224465
Ophthalmology. 2000 Oct;107(10):1809-15
pubmed: 11013178
Korean J Ophthalmol. 2014 Aug;28(4):323-9
pubmed: 25120341
Am J Ophthalmol. 2014 May;157(5):953-59
pubmed: 24487047
J Glaucoma. 2005 Dec;14(6):419-25
pubmed: 16276271
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009 Sep;50(9):4254-66
pubmed: 19443710
Am J Ophthalmol. 2003 Apr;135(4):513-20
pubmed: 12654369
Arch Ophthalmol. 1991 Jan;109(1):77-83
pubmed: 1987954
Arch Ophthalmol. 1985 Aug;103(8):1145-9
pubmed: 4026644
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009 May;50(5):1971-7
pubmed: 19151389
Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1977;75:539-55
pubmed: 613530