4.1 Article

Contributing Factors for Progression of Visual Field Loss in Normal-tension Glaucoma Patients With Medical Treatment

期刊

JOURNAL OF GLAUCOMA
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 250-254

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0b013e31823298fb

关键词

field defect progression; linear mixed model; myopic refraction; normal-tension glaucoma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To investigate the prognostic factors responsible for the progression of visual field defects (VFDs) in patients with normal-tension glaucoma (NTG) treated with topical antiglaucoma medications. Patients and Methods: A total of 92 eyes in 92 NTG patients treated with only topical antiglaucoma medications for >= 5 years were retrospectively analyzed. To identify subfield-based prognostic factors, the central 30-degree visual field (Humphrey Field Analyzer) was divided into 6 subfields: upper and lower arcuate, paracentral, and cecocentral subfields. Factors related to subfield-based progression (age, refraction, mean intraocular pressure (IOP), IOP variability, central corneal thickness, and disc hemorrhage) were evaluated using a linear mixed model. Results: Ninety-two eyes in 92 NTG patients were included in this study. The mean observation period was 7.7 +/- 2.7 (5.0 to 15.5) years, and the estimated rate of change in the mean deviation value was -0.16 +/- 0.31 dB/y (P < 0.001). A subfield-based linear mixed model analysis of the time course of changes in the mean of total deviation identified a greater extent of myopia as a significant positive prognostic factor for VFD progression in the upper paracentral area (P = 0.016). The mean IOP, central corneal thickness, disc hemorrhage, age, and IOP variation showed no significant contribution in any of the subfields. Conclusions: The extent of myopia was found to be a significant positive prognostic factor for VFD progression in the upper paracentral subfield for non-high-myopic NTG eyes with an average IOP of 14.2mm Hg under topical antiglaucoma medication.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据