4.6 Article

The Foveal Position Relative to the Optic Disc and the Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness Profile in Myopia

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
卷 55, 期 3, 页码 1419-1426

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.13-13604

关键词

disc-foveal angle; retinal nerve fiber layer; RNFL distribution; myopia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. To evaluate retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness profiles according to the foveal position relative to the optic disc in myopia METHODS. In 164 eyes of 164 healthy myopic subjects, the disc-foveal angle was defined as the angle between a horizontal line through the disc center and the line connecting the fovea and disc center in fundus photographs overlaid on Cirrus-HD optical coherence tomography (OCT) images. The quadrant/clock-hour based peripapillary RNFL thickness and differences between the inferior and superior (I-S) quadrant RNFL thicknesses were measured with OCT. RNFL thickness profiles were determined according to the disc-foveal angle and axial length (AL). RESULTS. As the disc-foveal angle increased (i.e., the fovea becomes more inferior to the optic disc), the superior RNFL decreased significantly (P = 0.003), whereas the inferior RNFL and IS difference increased (P = 0.010 and P < 0.001, respectively). As the AL increased, the average and temporal RNFLs increased significantly (P = 0.013 and P < 0.001, respectively), and I-S difference was not affected (P = 0.231). The disc-foveal angle was significantly decreased with the distance between the fovea and the optic disc (P = 0.033). In multiple linear regression analysis, the disc-foveal angle was found to be a significant factor related to I-S differences, superior and inferior RNFL (all, P < 0.05) after adjusting for age, disc area, and AL. CONCLUSIONS. The intrinsic foveal position relative to the optic disc was an essential determinant of normal RNFL thickness in myopia. In particular, it was associated with the vertical asymmetry of RNFL distribution.

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

4.6
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