4.6 Article

Characteristics of visual field progression in patients with normal-tension glaucoma with optic disk hemorrhages

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 135, 期 4, 页码 499-503

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9394(02)02056-1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To study the characteristics of visual field Progression in patients with normal,tension glaucoma (NTG) with optic disk hemorrhages. DESIGN: Observational study. METHODS: Fifty-eight eyes of 58 untreated patients with NTG who had at least five reliable visual fields of the Humphrey Field Analyzer (central 30-2) within the follow-up period of more than 24 months were enrolled. Of these, 27 eyes had optic disk hemorrhages in their clinical courses. Pointwise linear regression analysis was done using total deviation values of the fields at each of 74 test locations in each patient. Progression was defined as the points of negative slopes with P < .01. A whole visual field was concentrically divided into three clusters: the areas within 10 degrees, 10 to 20 degrees, and 20 to 30 degrees. Percentages of the progressed points of the three clusters and a whole field were compared between the groups with and without optic disk hemorrhages. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in patients' backgrounds, including initial mean deviation values, follow-up periods, and the number of visual field examinations between the 27 patients with optic disk hemorrhages and the 31 without. The group with optic disk hemorrhages showed significantly higher percentages of progressed points within the 10-degree area compared with the group without optic disk hemorrhages (mean +/- SD: 13.1 +/- 13.7%; 5.1 +/- 8.5%, respectively; P = .0086, Student t test), whereas no significant differences were found in the other two clusters or in a whole field. CONCLUSION: Patients with NTG with optic disk hemorrhages tend to show visual field progression in areas within 10 degrees. 499-503. (C) 2003 by Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

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