4.6 Article

Evaluation of the structure-function relationship in glaucoma

Journal

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
Volume 46, Issue 10, Pages 3712-3717

Publisher

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.05-0266

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NEI NIH HHS [EY-03424] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE. While glaucoma is evaluated on the basis of structural and functional test results, the spatial relationship between structure and function is not well defined. This study produces a topographical map to demonstrate how sectors of the optic nerve head (ONH) are related to locations in the visual field, using empiric cross-sectional patient data. METHODS. One hundred nine subjects with healthy eyes and 166 subjects with diagnosed or suspected glaucoma (one test per patient) were evaluated using a retina tomograph and white-on-white standard automated perimetry (SAP). The tomograph ONH images were divided into 36 sectors; and the sector rim areas normalized to account for changes in the total rim area. These were then correlated with SAP thresholds. For each visual field location, a map was produced indicating the strength of correlation between the normalized sector rim areas and thresholds. RESULTS. The highest correlation between a sector's normalized rim area and a SAP location's sensitivity was 0.520. Twenty-seven of the 52 non-blind spot SAP locations exhibited a correlation greater than 0.2 with at least one ONH sector. Locations in the superior hemifield were usually best correlated with the polar inferior temporal sectors of the ONH; locations in the inferior hemifield were usually best correlated with the polar superior temporal sectors of the ONH. CONCLUSIONS. A map relating regions of the ONH to SAP test locations has been produced. This map may be useful in elucidating the structure-function relationship, particularly for cases of localized glaucomatous loss.

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