4.6 Article

Comparison of peripapillary vessel density between preperimetric and perimetric glaucoma evaluated by OCT-angiography

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 12, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184297

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To determine peripapillary vessel density in eyes with perimetric glaucoma (PG) or preperimetric glaucoma (PPG) compared to normal controls using optical coherence tomographyangiography (OCT-A). Methods We recruited 13 patients with unilateral perimetric normal-tension glaucoma (NTG) and fellow preperimetric NTG showing only inferotemporal retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) defect in red-free RNFL photography in both eyes. We also enrolled 9 healthy controls. Using OCT-A, radial peripapillary capillary densities at inferotemporal and superotemporal regions were evaluated. Paired comparison of peripapillary vessel density was performed for PG eye, PPG eye, and normal eye. Results A total of 26 eyes of the 13 patients with unilateral PG and fellow PPG eyes and 18 eyes of 9 normal controls were analyzed. Vessel densities at the whole peripapillary region and inferotemporal region in PG eyes were significantly lower than those in PPG eyes (P = 0.001, P<0.001, respectively). Comparison between PPG and normal eyes showed no significant difference in the whole peripapillary region or the inferotemporal region (P = 0.654, P = 0.174, respectively). There was no significant (P = 0.288) difference in vessel density at superotemporal region among the three types of eyes (PG eye, PPG eye, and normal eye). Conclusion PPG eyes and normal eyes were found to have the similar densities of peripapillary microvasculature at the area with nerve fiber layer defect, whereas in PG eye, there was a significant decrease in vessel density at the area of RNFL thinning. This provides evidence that microvascular compromise in the retina might be a secondary change to nerve fiber layer degeneration in the pathogenesis of NTG.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available