4.4 Review

Glaucoma versus red disease: imaging and glaucoma diagnosis

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 23, 期 2, 页码 79-88

出版社

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

关键词

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

资金

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

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

4.4
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