| Literature DB >> 20213477 |
Martijn J Kanis1, Hans G Lemij, Tos T J M Berendschot, Jan van de Kraats, Dirk van Norren.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To test whether foveal cone photoreceptors are impaired in primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG).Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20213477 PMCID: PMC2877816 DOI: 10.1007/s00417-010-1331-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol ISSN: 0721-832X Impact factor: 3.117
Inclusion and exclusion criteria for control subjects and POAG patients
| Control subjects | POAG patients | |
|---|---|---|
| Inclusion criteria | age ≥18 years | age ≥18 years |
| no visual complaints | diagnosed with POAG >2 years | |
| no history of ophthalmic disease | central glaucomatous VF defects within 8 degrees from fovea | |
| no history of ophthalmic surgery, including IOL implantation | no diabetes mellitus | |
| no diabetes mellitus | no history of other retinal abnormalities | |
| Exclusion criteria | BCVA >0.1 LogMAR (Snellen BCVA < 80/100) | BCVA >0.7 LogMAR (Snellen BCVA <20/100) |
| IOP >21 mmHg | reliability VF test low† | |
| presence of glaucomatous VF defects* | macular abnormalities in fundus photographs | |
| reliability VF test low† | ||
| macular abnormalities in fundus photograph |
* Glaucomatous VF defects were defined as three adjacent points in one quadrant with p < 0.05.
† Exclusion if reliability factor >15 %
Patient characteristics
| ID | Type of glaucoma | Duration (years) | Max IOPa (mmHg) | Surgical interventionb (years ago) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | POAG with high IOP | 2 | 34 | LTP (1) |
| 2 | POAG with high IOP | 15 | 25 | TE (1) |
| 3 | POAG with high IOP | 16 | 32 | LTP (11) |
| 4 | POAG with high IOP | 18 | 60 | TE (17) |
| 5 | POAG with high IOP | 45 | 18 | TE (11) |
| 6 | POAG with high IOP | 40 | 24 | LTP (30) |
| 7 | POAG with high IOP | 3 | 26 | none |
| 8 | POAG with high IOP | 16 | 26 | none |
| 9 | POAG with high IOP | 14 | 28 | none |
| 10 | POAG with high IOP | 16 | 33 | none |
| 11 | POAG with high IOP | 8 | 35 | TE (4) |
| 12 | Normal tension | 2 | 22 | none |
| 13 | POAG with high IOP | 26 | 30 | LTP (10) |
| 14 | POAG with high IOP | 3 | 48 | none |
| 15 | POAG with high IOP | 26 | 41 | LTP (17), TE (9) |
| 16 | POAG with high IOP | 10 | 21 | LTP(10), TE (3) |
| 17 | Normal tension | 15 | 15 | none |
| 18 | Normal tension | 6 | 12 | LTP (6), TE (5) |
| 19 | POAG with high IOP | 10 | 40 | TE (1) |
aThe maximum known IOP values are probably lower than real IOP values in the past, due to the use of IOP-lowering drugs and/or surgical techniques
bLTP: laser trabeculoplasty, TE: trabeculectomy
Fig. 1Directional and spectral reflectance curves of a healthy subject and a POAG patient. a Pupil profiles at 540 nm of a 59-year-old healthy man (dashes) and a male POAG patient of the same age (triangles). The pupil profiles show a Gaussian-shaped directional reflection originating from the foveal cone photoreceptors (∼ optical SCE), on a diffuse non-directional background. Although present, this directional component is much smaller in the POAG patient. b Spectral reflectance curves of the same subjects at the pupil position where the optical SCE is at its maximum. At the short wavelengths, the reflection is very low because of the absorption in the eye lens. Around 460 nm the macular pigment reduces reflectance. At longer wavelengths, the reflectance is seen to increase because of decreasing absorption by melanin and blood. At yet longer wavelengths, water absorption reduces the reflectance. Note that the reflectance around 540 nm (Fig. 1b) is lower in the POAG patient than in the control subject, in accordance with Fig. 1a (for details see the text)
Comparison of general, optical model and OCT-related parameters between healthy control subjects and POAG-patients
| Parameter | Value |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control subjects: | POAG patients: | |||
| General |
| 34 | 19 | |
| Age (years) | 55.14 (24.72–73.27) | 60.05 (20.71–77.01) | 0.24 | |
| BCVA (LogMAR) | −0.07 (−0.26–0.06) | 0.06 (−0.12–0.38) | 0.001 | |
| IOP (mmHg) | 14 (9–21) | 15 (10–34) | 0.86 | |
| Optical model |
| 34 | 19 | |
| RILM (%) | 0.15 (0.00–1.08) | 0.08 (0.01–0.29) | < 0.001 | |
| Rd (%) | 2.21 (0.64–4.93) | 1.19 (0.08–3.60) | 0.003 | |
| chi-square value | 9.31 (6.54–28.62) | 9.11 (4.28–35.79) | 0.82 | |
| OCT |
| 34 | 16 | |
| FRT (µm) | 169 (131–238) | 184 (131–243) | 0.32 | |
| Mean center area thickness (µm) | 209 (159–270) | 208 (154–262) | 0.67 | |
| Mean inner ring thickness (µm) | 275 (233–299) | 244 (177–274) | < 0.001 | |
| Mean outer ring thickness (µm) | 233 (208–265) | 209 (162–230) | < 0.001 | |
Fig. 2a Boxplots of Rd in both control subjects and POAG patients. Outliers are shown as small circles. b Boxplots of RILM in control subjects and POAG patients