Funda E Onmez1, Banu Satana, Cigdem Altan, Berna Basarir, Ahmet Demirok. 1. *Department of Ophthalmology, Education and Research Hospital, Sakarya University, Sakarya †Department of Ophthalmology, Beyoglu Eye Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare optic nerve head parameters and retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness between large discs and normal-sized vital discs using Stratus optical coherence tomography (OCT). METHODS: A total of 293 healthy eyes (145 with macrodisc and 148 with normal-sized disc) were enrolled in the study. After a complete ophthalmic evaluation, measurement of optic nerve head parameters and RNFL thickness using OCT was performed in all subjects. Optic disc areas larger than 2.80 mm were accepted as macrodiscs. All OCT parameters were compared between normal-sized discs and macrodiscs. RESULTS: Participants' mean age was 46.5±10.6 years (range, 13 to 74 y). Average optic disc areas were 2.19±0.29 and 3.02±0.29 mm in the normal and the macrodisc groups, respectively. The optic disc area (P<0.0001), the cup area (P<0.0001), the horizontal cup disc ratio (P<0.0001), the vertical cup disc ratio (P<0.0001), and the cup disc area ratio (P<0.0001) were found to be significantly different in the macrodisc group and the control group. Rim areas (P=0.57) and RNFL thicknesses (inferior, superior, and mean) were found to be similar in both groups (P=0.75, 0.65, 0.85, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: A macrodisc may have a macrocup and should not be misdiagnosed as glaucoma. The present study showed that macrodiscs are identical to normal-sized discs in terms of rim area and RNFL thickness. We suggest that these 2 OCT parameters can help to differentiate a healthy macrodisc from a glaucomatous optic disc.
PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare optic nerve head parameters and retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness between large discs and normal-sized vital discs using Stratus optical coherence tomography (OCT). METHODS: A total of 293 healthy eyes (145 with macrodisc and 148 with normal-sized disc) were enrolled in the study. After a complete ophthalmic evaluation, measurement of optic nerve head parameters and RNFL thickness using OCT was performed in all subjects. Optic disc areas larger than 2.80 mm were accepted as macrodiscs. All OCT parameters were compared between normal-sized discs and macrodiscs. RESULTS:Participants' mean age was 46.5±10.6 years (range, 13 to 74 y). Average optic disc areas were 2.19±0.29 and 3.02±0.29 mm in the normal and the macrodisc groups, respectively. The optic disc area (P<0.0001), the cup area (P<0.0001), the horizontal cup disc ratio (P<0.0001), the vertical cup disc ratio (P<0.0001), and the cup disc area ratio (P<0.0001) were found to be significantly different in the macrodisc group and the control group. Rim areas (P=0.57) and RNFL thicknesses (inferior, superior, and mean) were found to be similar in both groups (P=0.75, 0.65, 0.85, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: A macrodisc may have a macrocup and should not be misdiagnosed as glaucoma. The present study showed that macrodiscs are identical to normal-sized discs in terms of rim area and RNFL thickness. We suggest that these 2 OCT parameters can help to differentiate a healthy macrodisc from a glaucomatous optic disc.