PURPOSE: To examine symmetry of macular, peripapillary nerve fiber layer (NFL), and optic disk measurements in healthy children. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: We examined a population-based sample of six-year-old children (n = 1,765) in the Sydney Childhood Eye Study. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) scan data for right and left eyes were compared. RESULTS: High interocular correlations (>0.8) were found for foveal minimum thickness and cup-to-disk ratios. Average NFL thickness was moderately correlated (0.7). Other macular, NFL, and optic disk parameters showed negligible or small mean interocular differences. In 95% of children, interocular difference in macular thickness was <22 microm for foveal minimum and <40 microm for other areas, and 16 to 17 microm for average NFL thickness. Cup-to-disk ratio was highly symmetric, varying by <0.25 in 95% of children. CONCLUSIONS: Interocular asymmetry of retinal/optic disk parameters should be interpreted in the context of other clinical measures because of the potential for large degrees of asymmetry among individuals.
PURPOSE: To examine symmetry of macular, peripapillary nerve fiber layer (NFL), and optic disk measurements in healthy children. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: We examined a population-based sample of six-year-old children (n = 1,765) in the Sydney Childhood Eye Study. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) scan data for right and left eyes were compared. RESULTS: High interocular correlations (>0.8) were found for foveal minimum thickness and cup-to-disk ratios. Average NFL thickness was moderately correlated (0.7). Other macular, NFL, and optic disk parameters showed negligible or small mean interocular differences. In 95% of children, interocular difference in macular thickness was <22 microm for foveal minimum and <40 microm for other areas, and 16 to 17 microm for average NFL thickness. Cup-to-disk ratio was highly symmetric, varying by <0.25 in 95% of children. CONCLUSIONS: Interocular asymmetry of retinal/optic disk parameters should be interpreted in the context of other clinical measures because of the potential for large degrees of asymmetry among individuals.
Authors: Melissa Wagner-Schuman; Adam M Dubis; Rick N Nordgren; Yuming Lei; Daniel Odell; Hellen Chiao; Eric Weh; William Fischer; Yusufu Sulai; Alfredo Dubra; Joseph Carroll Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Victor T T Chan; Zihan Sun; Shumin Tang; Li Jia Chen; Adrian Wong; Clement C Tham; Tien Y Wong; Christopher Chen; M Kamran Ikram; Heather E Whitson; Eleonora M Lad; Vincent C T Mok; Carol Y Cheung Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2018-08-13 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Jie Lu; Hao Zhou; Yingying Shi; James Choe; Mengxi Shen; Liang Wang; Kelly Chen; Qinqin Zhang; William J Feuer; Giovanni Gregori; Philip J Rosenfeld; Ruikang K Wang Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2022-01