3.9 Article Proceedings Paper

Relationship between central corneal thickness and changes of optic nerve head topography and blood flow after intraocular pressure reduction in open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension

Journal

ARCHIVES OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 124, Issue 11, Pages 1568-1572

Publisher

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archopht.124.11.1568

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To investigate changes in optic nerve head topography and blood flow after therapeutic intraocular pressure reduction and to correlate them with central corneal thickness. Methods: Sixteen patients with open-angle glaucoma and 16 patients with ocular hypertension underwent Heidelberg retina tomography and scanning laser Doppler flowmetry in 1 eye before and at least 2 months after a mean 35% sustained therapeutic reduction in intraocular pressure. Patients were assigned to a thin or thick group based on their median central corneal thickness. Results: Compared with 16 patients with thick corneas (mean +/- SD central corneal thickness, 587 +/- 31 mu m), the 16 patients with thin corneas (518 +/- 32 mu m) had greater reductions in mean (36 +/- 32 vs 4 +/- 36 mu m, P = .003) and in maximum cup depth (73 +/- 107 vs 4 +/- 89 mu m, P = .02). These changes were not statistically significantly different between the patients with open-angle glaucoma and those with ocular hypertension. Smaller mean +/- SD improvements in neuroretinal rim blood flow were seen in patients with thinner corneas compared with those with thicker corneas (35 +/- 80 vs 110 +/- 111 arbitrary units, P = .04). Conclusion: Patients with open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension with thinner corneas show significantly greater shallowing of the cup, a surrogate marker for lamina cribrosa displacement (compliance), and smaller improvements of neuroretinal rim blood flow after intraocular pressure reduction.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available