4.1 Article

Structural Differences in the Optic Nerve Head of Glaucoma Patients With and Without Disc Hemorrhages

Journal

JOURNAL OF GLAUCOMA
Volume 25, Issue 2, Pages E76-E81

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000262

Keywords

disc hemorrhage; optical coherence tomography; planimetry; Humphrey visual field progression

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The aim of the study was to evaluate differences in planimetry, optic nerve parameters, and visual field (VF) indices in glaucomatous eyes with a disc hemorrhage (DH), their contralateral counterparts without DH, and normal controls. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records (from 1995 to 2013) of 44 glaucoma subjects with unilateral DH and 50 normal controls. In the DH group, 33 had bilateral fundus photos for planimetric analysis (Cyoptique GL), 15 had spectral domain-optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT), 15 had VF indices (Humphrey Visual Field Analyser), and 39 had >= 5 perimetry outputs for progression analysis (Progressor). Results: Structurally, planimetric analysis revealed that the eye with DH had a larger cup-disc ratio, more significantly in the vertical aspect (P < 0.001), and a thinner rim (P = 0.010), compared with the contralateral eye without DH. SD-OCT analysis also showed a thinner rim area (P < 0.001), most significantly in 2, 3, and 9 clock hours and the inferior and superior quadrants (P < 0.001) compared with the contralateral eye without DH and normal controls. Also, the vertical cup-disc ratio was larger (P < 0.001). Functionally, VF deterioration was demonstrated by VF indices in eyes with DH-mean deviation: -10.69 versus -0.97, P < 0.001 and pattern standard deviation: 6.60 versus 1.59, P < 0.001, compared with normal controls. Conclusions: Eyes with DH consistently displayed both structural features of more advanced glaucoma confirmed simultaneously on planimetry and SD-OCT, with concurrent VF deterioration.

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