4.6 Article

Ethnic differences in optic nerve head and retinal nerve fibre layer thickness parameters in children

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 94, 期 7, 页码 871-876

出版社

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2009.158279

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian National Health & Medical Research Council, Canberra, Australia [253732]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim To examine ethnic differences in optic nerve head and retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) parameters between European Caucasian and East Asian children aged 6-12 years. Methods Of 4118 children examined in the Sydney Childhood Eye Study (incorporating the Sydney Myopia Study) from 34 randomly selected primary and 21 secondary schools during 2003-5, 3382 (82.1%) had optical coherence tomography (OCT; Zeiss Stratus) data suitable for analysis. 'Fast' optic disc and RNFL scans were used. Ethnicity was defined only when both parents were of the same ethnicity. Results East Asian children tended to have a lower birth weight, were shorter with a smaller body mass index and were less hyperopic than European Caucasian children of the same age. After adjusting for age, gender, axial length, birth weight and optic-disc area, East Asian children had similar mean vertical disc diameters to European Caucasians (p=0.38, p=0.64 for 6-12 years, respectively) but 30-43% larger mean vertical cup diameters (p<0.0001 for both), resulting in larger mean cup/disc ratios (p<0.0001 for both). Compared with European Caucasians (101.95 mm and 104.57 mm, respectively), East Asian children had thicker mean average RNFL (105.45 mm and 107.92 mm, respectively; p=0.0006 and 0.0001) and thicker non-nasal RNFL quadrants in both ages. Conclusions Compared with European Caucasian children, East Asian children generally had thicker RNFL and larger mean cup/disc ratios. Given the relatively lower prevalence of open angle glaucoma in Asians, these anatomical variations could contribute to better understanding of apparent racial differences in glaucoma susceptibility.

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