4.2 Article

Age-based analysis of choroidal thickness and choroidal vessel diameter in primary open-angle glaucoma

Journal

INTERNATIONAL OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 36, Issue 2, Pages 171-177

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10792-015-0092-4

Keywords

Aging; Choroid; Enhanced depth imaging; Glaucoma; Optical coherence tomography; Vessel

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We aimed to assess choroidal thickness and vessel diameter in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) using enhanced depth imaging (EDI) optical coherence tomography (OCT) with age-based analysis. Fifty-four patients with a confirmed diagnosis of POAG and 44 age-sex matched healthy subjects were included into the study. A masked physician performed measurements of largest choroidal vessel diameter and choroidal thicknesses (subfoveal, nasal, and temporal) using EDI OCT. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare choroidal measurements based on age (with a cut point of 70 years). The study cohort comprised 54 patients with POAG (mean age of 63.2 +/- A 8.8 years) and 44 healthy control subjects (mean age of 62.9 +/- A 8.5 years) (P = 0.870). We found no significant differences in terms of choroidal measurements (P > 0.05) between the glaucoma and control groups. However, in the glaucoma group, patients with an age a parts per thousand yen70 years had significantly thinner subfoveal and nasal choroid compared to those of the patients with < 70 years of age (P = 0.017, 0.002 respectively). In the control group, choroidal thickness and vessel measurements showed no significant difference when the subjects were subgrouped according to the age cut point (P > 0.05). Choroidal thickness and vessel caliber seem not to differ between patients with POAG and healthy controls. However, an age a parts per thousand yen70 years might be associated with thinning in subfoveal and nasal choroid in patients with POAG. Further studies are needed to elucidate whether choroidal thinning is a cause or result in POAG.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available