4.4 Review

Glaucoma versus red disease: imaging and glaucoma diagnosis

Journal

CURRENT OPINION IN OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 2, Pages 79-88

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ICU.0b013e32834ff431

Keywords

confocal scanning laser tomography; glaucoma; imaging; optical coherence tomography; peri-papillary; scanning laser polarimetry

Categories

Funding

  1. NIH NEI [EY016775]
  2. Research to Prevent Blindness
  3. NIH Center [EY014801]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose of review The use of ophthalmic imaging for documentation and diagnosis of ocular disease is rising dramatically. Optical coherence tomography (OCT), confocal scanning laser tomography (CSLT), scanning laser polarimetry (SLP) and photographic imaging of the optic nerve head (ONH) are currently used to document baseline characteristics of the ONH and for diagnosing glaucoma and glaucoma progression secondary to loss of retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL). Imaging modalities typically provide information on ONH and RNFL characteristics which are outside of the normal (relative to normative databases) in red lettering or boxes, whereas ONH and RNFL characteristics within the normal range are presented in green. Recent findings As imaging modalities have become more sophisticated and are validated in research studies, clinicians have come to rely upon data from these imaging devices to aid in differentiating between normal and glaucomatous states of the ONH and RNFL - typically by examining if the data are green or red suggesting normal or abnormal. However, normative databases can sometimes be flawed relative to atypical ONH or RNFL morphologies and imaging can provide artifacts which do not represent true ocular disease but secondary to limitations of imaging technology. Summary Ophthalmic imaging is an important adjunct to clinical diagnosis but the results from imaging devices need to be assessed critically relative to artifacts of imaging and the limitations of the technology and its normative databases.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available