Navid Amini1, Sara Nowroozizadeh1, Nila Cirineo1, Sharon Henry1, Ted Chang2, Tom Chou3, Anne L Coleman1, Joseph Caprioli1, Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi1. 1. Glaucoma Division, Stein Eye Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States. 2. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States. 3. Department of Biomathematics, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine factors affecting the disc-fovea angle (DFA), and to test the hypotheses that adjusting for DFA improves limits of retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) variability in normal subjects or enhances performance of RNFL measures for glaucoma detection. METHODS: Disc-fovea angle was measured on scanning laser ophthalmoscope fundus images from 170 eyes (110 normal and glaucoma subjects). The DFA measurements were repeated in 24 eyes. The relationship between DFA and various anatomic variables was explored. Main outcome measures were changes in 95% RNFL prediction limits or glaucoma discrimination after adjusting for DFA. We also explored the angle between temporal raphe and horizontal meridian in 19 eyes with nasal field defects limited to one hemifield. RESULTS: Average mean deviation and DFA were -0.1 (±1.2) dB and -6.6° (±3.4°) and -4.1 (±3.3) dB and -7.9° (±3.9°) in the control and glaucoma groups, respectively (P < 0.001 and = 0.029). The average difference between DFA repeat measurements was 2.0° (±1.8°). Predictors for DFA were female sex (P = 0.004), smaller disc area (P = 0.006), and glaucoma diagnosis (P = 0.019). The absolute change in sectoral RNFL thickness was 6.1 (±3.9) and 4.6 (±3.1) μm in control and glaucoma subjects, respectively. Retinal nerve fiber layer prediction limits improved in 5, 9, and 10 o'clock sectors (P < 0.02). Discrimination ability for the best-performing RNFL sector did not improve (P = 0.936). The average angle between temporal raphe and horizontal meridian was 0.8° (±0.8°). CONCLUSIONS: Disc-fovea angle measurements demonstrated fair intersession repeatability. While adjusting for DFA improved RNFL prediction limits in some sectors, it did not enhance glaucoma detection. Copyright 2014 The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
PURPOSE: To determine factors affecting the disc-fovea angle (DFA), and to test the hypotheses that adjusting for DFA improves limits of retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) variability in normal subjects or enhances performance of RNFL measures for glaucoma detection. METHODS: Disc-fovea angle was measured on scanning laser ophthalmoscope fundus images from 170 eyes (110 normal and glaucoma subjects). The DFA measurements were repeated in 24 eyes. The relationship between DFA and various anatomic variables was explored. Main outcome measures were changes in 95% RNFL prediction limits or glaucoma discrimination after adjusting for DFA. We also explored the angle between temporal raphe and horizontal meridian in 19 eyes with nasal field defects limited to one hemifield. RESULTS: Average mean deviation and DFA were -0.1 (±1.2) dB and -6.6° (±3.4°) and -4.1 (±3.3) dB and -7.9° (±3.9°) in the control and glaucoma groups, respectively (P < 0.001 and = 0.029). The average difference between DFA repeat measurements was 2.0° (±1.8°). Predictors for DFA were female sex (P = 0.004), smaller disc area (P = 0.006), and glaucoma diagnosis (P = 0.019). The absolute change in sectoral RNFL thickness was 6.1 (±3.9) and 4.6 (±3.1) μm in control and glaucoma subjects, respectively. Retinal nerve fiber layer prediction limits improved in 5, 9, and 10 o'clock sectors (P < 0.02). Discrimination ability for the best-performing RNFL sector did not improve (P = 0.936). The average angle between temporal raphe and horizontal meridian was 0.8° (±0.8°). CONCLUSIONS: Disc-fovea angle measurements demonstrated fair intersession repeatability. While adjusting for DFA improved RNFL prediction limits in some sectors, it did not enhance glaucoma detection. Copyright 2014 The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
Authors: Donald C Hood; Brad Fortune; Stella N Arthur; Danli Xing; Jennifer A Salant; Robert Ritch; Jeffrey M Liebmann Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2008 Oct-Nov Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Ko Eun Kim; Ki Ho Park; Beong Wook Yoo; Jin Wook Jeoung; Dong Myung Kim; Hee Chan Kim Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-05-06 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Nicholas G Strouthidis; Hongli Yang; Juan F Reynaud; Jonathan L Grimm; Stuart K Gardiner; Brad Fortune; Claude F Burgoyne Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2009-05-14 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Grant A Cull; Juan Reynaud; Lin Wang; George A Cioffi; Claude F Burgoyne; Brad Fortune Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2012-11-21 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Seungwoo Hong; Hongli Yang; Stuart K Gardiner; Haomin Luo; Christy Hardin; Glen P Sharpe; Joseph Caprioli; Shaban Demirel; Christopher A Girkin; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Christian Y Mardin; Harry A Quigley; Alexander F Scheuerle; Brad Fortune; Balwantray C Chauhan; Claude F Burgoyne Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2019-05-13 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Balwantray C Chauhan; Vishva M Danthurebandara; Glen P Sharpe; Shaban Demirel; Christopher A Girkin; Christian Y Mardin; Alexander F Scheuerle; Claude F Burgoyne Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2015-07-18 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Kenneth C Fan; Edem Tsikata; Ziad Khoueir; Huseyin Simavli; Rong Guo; Regina A de Luna; Sumir Pandit; Christian J Que; Johannes F de Boer; Teresa C Chen Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 2.503