4.1 Article

Topographic Differences in the Age-related Changes in the Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer of Normal Eyes Measured by Stratus Optical Coherence Tomography

Journal

JOURNAL OF GLAUCOMA
Volume 20, Issue 3, Pages 133-138

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e3181e079b2

Keywords

retinal nerve fiber layer; optical coherence tomography; age

Categories

Funding

  1. NIH center [P30 EY014801]
  2. National Eye Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
  3. Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc., New York, New York
  4. Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To determine whether there are regional differences in the age-related changes in peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness as measured by time-domain optical coherence tomography (OCT). Methods: Fast peripapillary RNFL scans obtained with the Stratus time-domain OCT with nominal diameter of 3.46-mm centered on the optic disc were carried out on 425 normal participants over a wide age range. One eye was randomly selected for scanning or analysis. Average RNFL-, clock hour-, and quadrant-specific rates of RNFL thickness change were calculated and compared. Results: The 425 study participants ranged in age from 18 to 85 years with mean (+/- SD) of 46 (+/- 15) years. The mean (+/- SD) average measured RNFL thickness was 104.7 (+/- 10.8) micrometers (mm). The decline in the average RNFL thickness was 2.4 mu m per decade of age. Changes in RNFL thickness per decade of age ranged from -5.4 (P < 0.001) at clock hour 1 to -0.9 (P = 0.28) at clock hour 6. Similarly, the rate of thickness change per decade of age in the superior quadrant was -4.3 (P < 0.001) versus -1.5 (P = 0.006) in the inferior quadrant. The slopes of thinning superiorly and inferiorly were highly significantly different (P = 0.001). Conclusions: The age-related decline in normal RNFL measurements does not occur at equal rates around the disc and occurs mainly superiorly.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available