BACKGROUND: The optic disc size is an important parameter for the diagnosis of glaucomatous and non-glaucomatous optic nerve damage. The aim of this study was to compare quantitative measurements of the optic disc with the established conventional planimetry and a new digital method using Soft imaging system analySIS(tm) for Ophthalmology and to determine the reproducibility of this new method. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty color stereo optic disc photographs of 50 patients (mean age 41.7 +/- 13.4 y) were included in the retrospective, comparative study. Conventional and digital planimetry was taken from one skilled examiner in a masked fashion. According to patient's number measurement values obtained with both methods were matched. Digital planimetric measurements of 10 optic disc photographs were repeated on day 7 and day 14. Statistical analysis was done using linear regression analysis, reliability coefficient and U-test. RESULTS: The planimetric values did not vary significantly between the two methods for optic disc area (3.19 +/- 0.65 mm(2) vs. 3.03 +/- 0.64 mm(2), p=0.96), for cup area (1.36 +/- 0.62 mm(2) vs. 1.21 +/- 0.63 mm(2), p=0.96) or for neuroretinal rim area (1.83 +/- 0.39 vs. 1.82 +/- 0.41 mm(2), p=0.98). There was also no significant difference of horizontal and vertical diameter of optic disc and cup as well as the diameter of the superior temporal and inferior temporal retinal artery and vein at the optic disc border between both methods (p < 0.5). Differences between measured values for optic disc, optic cup area and neuroretinal rim area obtained with both methods were 0.16 +/- 0.10 mm(2) (range - 0.05 to 0.24), 0.15 +/- 0.10 mm(2) (range - 0.12 to 0.26) and 0.014 +/- 0.11 mm(2) (range - 0.26 to 0.26). A high correlation of all planimetric values was observed between both methods (r=0.9, p < 0.0001). Using digital planimetry differences between day 1, day 7 and day 14 were 0.05 +/- 0.03 (range 0.02 to 0.10 mm(2)) for optic disc, 0.05 +/- 0.04 (range 0.0 to 0.13 mm(2)) for optic cup area and 0.05 +/- 0.05 (range 0.01 to 0.14 mm(2)) for the neuroretinal rim area. The reliability coefficient of digital planimetry was 0.9 for optic disc parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The comparable results between both methods and a high reproducibility suggest that the digital planimetry could be used either for clinical routine or scientific evaluation of the optic nerve.
BACKGROUND: The optic disc size is an important parameter for the diagnosis of glaucomatous and non-glaucomatous optic nerve damage. The aim of this study was to compare quantitative measurements of the optic disc with the established conventional planimetry and a new digital method using Soft imaging system analySIS(tm) for Ophthalmology and to determine the reproducibility of this new method. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty color stereo optic disc photographs of 50 patients (mean age 41.7 +/- 13.4 y) were included in the retrospective, comparative study. Conventional and digital planimetry was taken from one skilled examiner in a masked fashion. According to patient's number measurement values obtained with both methods were matched. Digital planimetric measurements of 10 optic disc photographs were repeated on day 7 and day 14. Statistical analysis was done using linear regression analysis, reliability coefficient and U-test. RESULTS: The planimetric values did not vary significantly between the two methods for optic disc area (3.19 +/- 0.65 mm(2) vs. 3.03 +/- 0.64 mm(2), p=0.96), for cup area (1.36 +/- 0.62 mm(2) vs. 1.21 +/- 0.63 mm(2), p=0.96) or for neuroretinal rim area (1.83 +/- 0.39 vs. 1.82 +/- 0.41 mm(2), p=0.98). There was also no significant difference of horizontal and vertical diameter of optic disc and cup as well as the diameter of the superior temporal and inferior temporal retinal artery and vein at the optic disc border between both methods (p < 0.5). Differences between measured values for optic disc, optic cup area and neuroretinal rim area obtained with both methods were 0.16 +/- 0.10 mm(2) (range - 0.05 to 0.24), 0.15 +/- 0.10 mm(2) (range - 0.12 to 0.26) and 0.014 +/- 0.11 mm(2) (range - 0.26 to 0.26). A high correlation of all planimetric values was observed between both methods (r=0.9, p < 0.0001). Using digital planimetry differences between day 1, day 7 and day 14 were 0.05 +/- 0.03 (range 0.02 to 0.10 mm(2)) for optic disc, 0.05 +/- 0.04 (range 0.0 to 0.13 mm(2)) for optic cup area and 0.05 +/- 0.05 (range 0.01 to 0.14 mm(2)) for the neuroretinal rim area. The reliability coefficient of digital planimetry was 0.9 for optic disc parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The comparable results between both methods and a high reproducibility suggest that the digital planimetry could be used either for clinical routine or scientific evaluation of the optic nerve.