PURPOSE: To investigate the rate of visual field and optic disc change in patients with distinct patterns of glaucomatous optic disc damage. DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 131 patients with open-angle glaucoma with focal (n = 45), diffuse (n = 42), and sclerotic (n = 44) optic disc damage. METHODS: Patients were examined every 4 months with standard automated perimetry (SAP, SITA Standard, 24-2 test, Humphrey Field Analyzer, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA) and confocal scanning laser tomography (CSLT, Heidelberg Retina Tomograph, Heidelberg Engineering GmbH, Heidelberg, Germany) for a period of 4 years. During this time, patients were treated according to a predefined protocol to achieve a target intraocular pressure (IOP). Rates of change were estimated by robust linear regression of visual field mean deviation (MD) and global optic disc neuroretinal rim area with follow-up time. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of change in MD and rim area. RESULTS: Rates of visual field change in patients with focal optic disc damage (mean -0.34, standard deviation [SD] 0.69 dB/year) were faster than in patients with sclerotic (mean -0.14, SD 0.77 dB/year) and diffuse (mean +0.01, SD 0.37 dB/year) optic disc damage (P = 0.003, Kruskal-Wallis). Rates of optic disc change in patients with focal optic disc damage (mean -11.70, SD 25.5 ×10(-3) mm(2)/year) were faster than in patients with diffuse (mean -9.16, SD 14.9 ×10(-3) mm(2)/year) and sclerotic (mean -0.45, SD 20.6 ×10(-3) mm(2)/year) optic disc damage, although the differences were not statistically significant (P = 0.11). Absolute IOP reduction from untreated levels was similar among the groups (P = 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with focal optic disc damage had faster rates of visual field change and a tendency toward faster rates of optic disc deterioration when compared with patients with diffuse and sclerotic optic disc damage, despite similar IOP reductions during follow-up.
PURPOSE: To investigate the rate of visual field and optic disc change in patients with distinct patterns of glaucomatous optic disc damage. DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 131 patients with open-angle glaucoma with focal (n = 45), diffuse (n = 42), and sclerotic (n = 44) optic disc damage. METHODS:Patients were examined every 4 months with standard automated perimetry (SAP, SITA Standard, 24-2 test, Humphrey Field Analyzer, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA) and confocal scanning laser tomography (CSLT, Heidelberg Retina Tomograph, Heidelberg Engineering GmbH, Heidelberg, Germany) for a period of 4 years. During this time, patients were treated according to a predefined protocol to achieve a target intraocular pressure (IOP). Rates of change were estimated by robust linear regression of visual field mean deviation (MD) and global optic disc neuroretinal rim area with follow-up time. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of change in MD and rim area. RESULTS: Rates of visual field change in patients with focal optic disc damage (mean -0.34, standard deviation [SD] 0.69 dB/year) were faster than in patients with sclerotic (mean -0.14, SD 0.77 dB/year) and diffuse (mean +0.01, SD 0.37 dB/year) optic disc damage (P = 0.003, Kruskal-Wallis). Rates of optic disc change in patients with focal optic disc damage (mean -11.70, SD 25.5 ×10(-3) mm(2)/year) were faster than in patients with diffuse (mean -9.16, SD 14.9 ×10(-3) mm(2)/year) and sclerotic (mean -0.45, SD 20.6 ×10(-3) mm(2)/year) optic disc damage, although the differences were not statistically significant (P = 0.11). Absolute IOP reduction from untreated levels was similar among the groups (P = 0.59). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with focal optic disc damage had faster rates of visual field change and a tendency toward faster rates of optic disc deterioration when compared with patients with diffuse and sclerotic optic disc damage, despite similar IOP reductions during follow-up.
Authors: Eren Ekici; Sasan Moghimi; Christopher Bowd; Huiyuan Hou; Rafaella C Penteado; James Proudfoot; Diya Yang; Robert N Weinreb Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2020-06-17 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Alexandre S C Reis; Glen P Sharpe; Hongli Yang; Marcelo T Nicolela; Claude F Burgoyne; Balwantray C Chauhan Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-01-04 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Eren Ekici; Sasan Moghimi; Huiyuan Hou; James Proudfoot; Linda M Zangwill; Jiun L Do; Won Hyuk Oh; Alireza Kamalipour; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Christopher A Girkin; Nevin El-Nimri; Robert N Weinreb Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2020-10-29 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Yeji Moon; Junki Kwon; Da Woon Jeong; Jin Young Lee; Jong Rak Lee; Seungbong Han; Michael S Kook Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-12-13 Impact factor: 3.240