Adam L Rothman1, Monica B Sevilla1, Sharon F Freedman2, Amy Y Tong1, Vincent Tai1, Du Tran-Viet1, Sina Farsiu3, Cynthia A Toth1, Mays A El-Dairi4. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University Eye Center, Durham, North Carolina. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University Eye Center, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Pediatrics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University Eye Center, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University Eye Center, Durham, North Carolina; Department of Pediatrics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: mays.el-dairi@dm.duke.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To measure average retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thicknesses in healthy, full-term neonates. DESIGN: Descriptive research to develop normative data. METHODS: Healthy infants born between 37 and 42 weeks postmenstrual age were imaged with hand-held spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. A custom script segmented the RNFL; the fovea and optic nerve center were manually selected. A second script measured the average RNFL thickness along the papillomacular bundle, defined as the arc from -15 degrees to +15 degrees on the axis from the optic nerve to fovea, with radii of 1.1, 1.3, 1.5, and 1.7 mm from the center of the optic disc. Shapiro-Wilk W tests assessed these measurements for normality to determine the age-appropriate radial distance for subsequent analyses. Average RNFL thicknesses for four temporal 45-degree sectors (superior temporal, temporal superior, temporal inferior, and inferior temporal) and the temporal quadrant were calculated and compared to demographic parameters for all infants. RESULTS: Fifty full-term infants were adequately imaged for RNFL analysis. RNFL thicknesses at 1.5 mm radial distance from the optic nerve were the most normally distributed. While there was a trend toward greater mean superior temporal RNFL thickness for both black and Hispanic vs white infants (128 ± 27 μm, 124 ± 30 μm, and 100 ± 19 μm, respectively, P = .04 for both comparisons), there were no other significant differences noted in RNFL thicknesses by race, sex, gestational age, or birth weight. CONCLUSIONS: We present RNFL thickness measurements for healthy, full-term infants that may serve as normative data for future analyses.
PURPOSE: To measure average retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thicknesses in healthy, full-term neonates. DESIGN: Descriptive research to develop normative data. METHODS: Healthy infants born between 37 and 42 weeks postmenstrual age were imaged with hand-held spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. A custom script segmented the RNFL; the fovea and optic nerve center were manually selected. A second script measured the average RNFL thickness along the papillomacular bundle, defined as the arc from -15 degrees to +15 degrees on the axis from the optic nerve to fovea, with radii of 1.1, 1.3, 1.5, and 1.7 mm from the center of the optic disc. Shapiro-Wilk W tests assessed these measurements for normality to determine the age-appropriate radial distance for subsequent analyses. Average RNFL thicknesses for four temporal 45-degree sectors (superior temporal, temporal superior, temporal inferior, and inferior temporal) and the temporal quadrant were calculated and compared to demographic parameters for all infants. RESULTS: Fifty full-term infants were adequately imaged for RNFL analysis. RNFL thicknesses at 1.5 mm radial distance from the optic nerve were the most normally distributed. While there was a trend toward greater mean superior temporal RNFL thickness for both black and Hispanic vs white infants (128 ± 27 μm, 124 ± 30 μm, and 100 ± 19 μm, respectively, P = .04 for both comparisons), there were no other significant differences noted in RNFL thicknesses by race, sex, gestational age, or birth weight. CONCLUSIONS: We present RNFL thickness measurements for healthy, full-term infants that may serve as normative data for future analyses.
Authors: Irene Altemir; Victoria Pueyo; Noemi Elía; Vicente Polo; Jose M Larrosa; Daniel Oros Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2012-09-08 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Sasapin G Prakalapakorn; Sharon F Freedman; Yuliya Lokhnygina; Nandini G Gandhi; Sandra Holgado; Bei Bei Chen; Mays A El-Dairi Journal: J AAPOS Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 1.220
Authors: Lejla Vajzovic; Anita E Hendrickson; Rachelle V O'Connell; Laura A Clark; Du Tran-Viet; Daniel Possin; Stephanie J Chiu; Sina Farsiu; Cynthia A Toth Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2012-08-13 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Lan Chang; Mays A El-Dairi; Tamiesha A Frempong; Erica L Burner; M Tariq Bhatti; Terri L Young; Fawn Leigh Journal: J AAPOS Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 1.220
Authors: Ramiro S Maldonado; Joseph A Izatt; Neeru Sarin; David K Wallace; Sharon Freedman; C Michael Cotten; Cynthia A Toth Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2010-01-13 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Sai H Chavala; Sina Farsiu; Ramiro Maldonado; David K Wallace; Sharon F Freedman; Cynthia A Toth Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2009-09-18 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Susan E Yanni; Jingyun Wang; Christina S Cheng; Kelly I Locke; Yuquan Wen; David G Birch; Eileen E Birch Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2012-11-03 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Shwetha Mangalesh; Du Tran-Viet; Carolyn Pizoli; Vincent Tai; Mays Antoine El-Dairi; Xi Chen; Christian Viehland; Laura Edwards; Joanne Finkle; Sharon F Freedman; Cynthia Ann Toth Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2020-05-29 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Adam L Rothman; Monica B Sevilla; Shwetha Mangalesh; Kathryn E Gustafson; Laura Edwards; C Michael Cotten; Joshua S Shimony; Carolyn E Pizoli; Mays A El-Dairi; Sharon F Freedman; Cynthia A Toth Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2015-09-18 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Liangbo L Shen; Shwetha Mangalesh; Brendan McGeehan; Vincent Tai; Neeru Sarin; Mays A El-Dairi; Sharon F Freedman; Maureen G Maguire; Cynthia A Toth Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2020-09-04 Impact factor: 5.258