OBJECTIVE: Retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) abnormalities detected by optical coherence tomography (OCT) are useful markers for axonal loss and visual dysfunction in multiple sclerosis (MS), but their role in routine clinical management is not well-studied. METHODS: Clinical and OCT examinations were performed on 240 patients attending a neurology clinic. Using OCT 5th percentile to define abnormal RNFL thickness, we compared eyes classified by neurologists as having optic atrophy to RNFL thickness, and afferent pupillary defect (APD) to RNFL thickness ratios of eye pairs. RESULTS: Mean RNFL thickness was less in eyes classified by neurologists as having optic atrophy (79.4 ± 21 μm; n=63) vs those without (97.0 ± 15 μm; n=417; p < 0.001, t test) and in eyes with an APD (84.1 ± 16 μm; n=44) than without an APD (95.8 ± 17 μm; n=436; p < 0.001). Physicians' diagnostic accuracy for detecting pallor in eyes with an abnormal RNFL thickness was 79% (sensitivity=0.56; specificity=0.82). Accuracy for detecting a RAPD in patients with mean RNFL ratio (affected eye to unaffected eye) <0.90 was 73% (sensitivity=0.30; specificity=0.86). Ability to detect visual pathway injury via assessment of atrophy and APD differed between neurologists. CONCLUSIONS: OCT reveals RNFL abnormality in many patients in whom eyes are not classified by neurologic examiners as having optic atrophy. Further study is needed to define the role of OCT measures in the context of examinations for optic atrophy and APD by neuroophthalmologists. OCT-measured RNFL thickness is likely to have an important future role in the clinical setting.
OBJECTIVE: Retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) abnormalities detected by optical coherence tomography (OCT) are useful markers for axonal loss and visual dysfunction in multiple sclerosis (MS), but their role in routine clinical management is not well-studied. METHODS: Clinical and OCT examinations were performed on 240 patients attending a neurology clinic. Using OCT 5th percentile to define abnormal RNFL thickness, we compared eyes classified by neurologists as having optic atrophy to RNFL thickness, and afferent pupillary defect (APD) to RNFL thickness ratios of eye pairs. RESULTS: Mean RNFL thickness was less in eyes classified by neurologists as having optic atrophy (79.4 ± 21 μm; n=63) vs those without (97.0 ± 15 μm; n=417; p < 0.001, t test) and in eyes with an APD (84.1 ± 16 μm; n=44) than without an APD (95.8 ± 17 μm; n=436; p < 0.001). Physicians' diagnostic accuracy for detecting pallor in eyes with an abnormal RNFL thickness was 79% (sensitivity=0.56; specificity=0.82). Accuracy for detecting a RAPD in patients with mean RNFL ratio (affected eye to unaffected eye) <0.90 was 73% (sensitivity=0.30; specificity=0.86). Ability to detect visual pathway injury via assessment of atrophy and APD differed between neurologists. CONCLUSIONS: OCT reveals RNFL abnormality in many patients in whom eyes are not classified by neurologic examiners as having optic atrophy. Further study is needed to define the role of OCT measures in the context of examinations for optic atrophy and APD by neuroophthalmologists. OCT-measured RNFL thickness is likely to have an important future role in the clinical setting.
Authors: D Huang; E A Swanson; C P Lin; J S Schuman; W G Stinson; W Chang; M R Hee; T Flotte; K Gregory; C A Puliafito Journal: Science Date: 1991-11-22 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Felipe A Medeiros; Linda M Zangwill; Christopher Bowd; Pamela A Sample; Robert N Weinreb Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: J B Kerrison; K Buchanan; M L Rosenberg; R Clark; K Andreason; D V Alfaro; H E Grossniklaus; L A Kerrigan-Baumrind; D F Kerrigan; N R Miller; H A Quigley Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2001-09
Authors: Jennifer B Fisher; Dina A Jacobs; Clyde E Markowitz; Steven L Galetta; Nicholas J Volpe; M Ligia Nano-Schiavi; Monika L Baier; Elliot M Frohman; Heather Winslow; Teresa C Frohman; Peter A Calabresi; Maureen G Maguire; Gary R Cutter; Laura J Balcer Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2006-01-10 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: S Anand Trip; Patricio G Schlottmann; Stephen J Jones; Daniel R Altmann; David F Garway-Heath; Alan J Thompson; Gordon T Plant; David H Miller Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Christopher Eckstein; Shiv Saidha; Elias S Sotirchos; Gita Byraiah; Michaela Seigo; Aleksandra Stankiewicz; Stephanie B Syc; E'tona Ford; Srilakshmi Sharma; Peter A Calabresi; Carlos A Pardo Journal: J Neurol Date: 2012-01-04 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Basanta Bhaduri; Ryan M Nolan; Ryan L Shelton; Lara A Pilutti; Robert W Motl; Heather E Moss; John H Pula; Stephen A Boppart Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2016-05-20 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Tomas S Aleman; Jiayan Huang; Sean T Garrity; Stuart B Carter; Wendy D Aleman; Gui-Shuang Ying; Madhura A Tamhankar Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2014-11-03 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Yunyan Zhang; Luanne M Metz; James N Scott; Jessie Trufyn; Gordon H Fick; Fiona Costello Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2014-01-14 Impact factor: 4.881