PURPOSE: To compare optic disc topography and nerve fiber layer thickness in ocular hypertensive eyes and normal subjects. DESIGN: Prospective, case-controlled study. PARTICIPANTS AND CONTROLS: One eye in each of 20 normal and 27 ocular hypertensive patients was enrolled. METHODS: Consecutive normal and ocular hypertensive patients were enrolled. Each patient underwent complete ophthalmic examination, achromatic automated perimetry, short-wavelength automated perimetry, confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy, confocal scanning laser polarimetry, and optical coherence tomography. The intraocular pressure was 21 mmHg or less for normal subjects and at least 25 mmHg on two separate occasions in ocular hypertensive eyes. Structural parameters were compared between the two groups. Eyes with evidence of glaucomatous optic neuropathy, achromatic visual field loss, or evidence of focal visual field injury during short-wavelength automated perimetry were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Optic nerve head topography and nerve fiber layer thickness. RESULTS: The three imaging technologies could not detect differences in optic disc or nerve fiber layer anatomy between the two groups. Ocular hypertensive eyes had a greater corrected pattern standard deviation than normal eyes during short-wavelength automated perimetry (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Ocular hypertensive eyes with normal achromatic automated perimetry and short-wavelength automated perimetry could not be distinguished from normal subjects with confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy, confocal scanning laser polarimetry, and optical coherence tomography.
PURPOSE: To compare optic disc topography and nerve fiber layer thickness in ocular hypertensive eyes and normal subjects. DESIGN: Prospective, case-controlled study. PARTICIPANTS AND CONTROLS: One eye in each of 20 normal and 27 ocular hypertensivepatients was enrolled. METHODS: Consecutive normal and ocular hypertensivepatients were enrolled. Each patient underwent complete ophthalmic examination, achromatic automated perimetry, short-wavelength automated perimetry, confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy, confocal scanning laser polarimetry, and optical coherence tomography. The intraocular pressure was 21 mmHg or less for normal subjects and at least 25 mmHg on two separate occasions in ocular hypertensive eyes. Structural parameters were compared between the two groups. Eyes with evidence of glaucomatous optic neuropathy, achromatic visual field loss, or evidence of focal visual field injury during short-wavelength automated perimetry were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Optic nerve head topography and nerve fiber layer thickness. RESULTS: The three imaging technologies could not detect differences in optic disc or nerve fiber layer anatomy between the two groups. Ocular hypertensive eyes had a greater corrected pattern standard deviation than normal eyes during short-wavelength automated perimetry (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS:Ocular hypertensive eyes with normal achromatic automated perimetry and short-wavelength automated perimetry could not be distinguished from normal subjects with confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy, confocal scanning laser polarimetry, and optical coherence tomography.