3.9 Article

Measurement of Local Retinal Ganglion Cell Layer Thickness in Patients With Glaucoma Using Frequency-Domain Optical Coherence Tomography

Journal

ARCHIVES OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 127, Issue 7, Pages 875-881

Publisher

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2009.145

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland [EY09076, EY02115]
  2. New York Glaucoma Research Institute
  3. Topcon, Inc
  4. National Basic Research Program of China [2007CB512204]
  5. National Science Foundation of China [30571996, 30600696]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To explore the feasibility of obtaining a local measurement of the thickness of the retinal ganglion cell layer in patients with glaucoma using frequency-domain optical coherence tomography (fdOCT) and a computer-aided manual segmentation procedure. Methods: The fdOCT scans were obtained from the horizontal midline for 1 eye of 26 patients with glaucoma and 20 control subjects. The thickness of various layers was measured with a manual segmentation procedure aided by a computer program. The patients were divided into low- and high-sensitivity groups based on their foveal sensitivity on standard automated perimetry. Results: The RGC plus inner plexiform and the retinal nerve fiber layers of the low-sensitivity group were significantly thinner than those of the high-sensitivity group. While these layers were thinner in the patients than the controls, the thicknesses of inner nuclear layer and receptor layer were similar in all 3 groups. Further, the thinning of the retinal ganglion cell plus inner plexiform layer in 1 glaucoma-affected eye showed qualitative correspondence to the loss in 10-2 visual field sensitivity. Conclusions: Local measures of RGC layer thickness can be obtained from fdOCT scans using a manual segmentation procedure, and these measures show qualitative agreement with visual field sensitivity.

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