4.6 Article

Central corneal thickness and correlation to optic disc size: a potential link for susceptibility to glaucoma

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 91, Issue 1, Pages 26-28

Publisher

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2006.106039

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: To evaluate a possible relationship between central corneal thickness (CCT) and optic disc area in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). Methods: Patients with POAG underwent eye examination, optic disc imaging with the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph II (HRT II) and ultrasound corneal pachymetry. Exclusion criteria were prior ocular surgery and low-quality HRT II images (HRT standard deviation (SD) > 50). Pearson's correlation coefficients were calculated to assess the associations between CCT and optic disc area. Results: 212 eyes of 137 patients with POAG were examined. In all, 66 (48%) subjects were women, 104 (76%) were Caucasian, 26 (19%) African-American and 7 (5%) other races. 72 eyes remained after excluding those with prior intraocular surgery and low-quality HRT II images. In a univariate analysis of this group, CCT was inversely correlated with optic disc surface area ( Pearson's correlation coefficient r = 20.284, p = 0.036, n = 72). Mean ( SD) disc area was 2 (0.53) mm(2) ( n = 160). Caucasians had significantly smaller discs (p < 0.001) than other races (Caucasian 1.9 (0.47) mm2 (n = 119), African- Americans 2.4 (0.54) mm(2) (n = 31), other races 2.3 (0.45) mm(2) (n = 10)). Conclusion: CCT is inversely correlated to optic disc area. Although thicker corneas have been recognised to cause slight overestimation of true intraocular pressure (IOP), they may also indicate the presence of a substantially smaller, and thus more robust, optic nerve head. People with thinner corneas which slightly underestimate the true IOP may also have larger and more deformable optic discs.

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