Yi Pang1, Kelly A Frantz1. 1. Illinois College of Optometry, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether Heidelberg Retinal Tomograph (HRT) is a valid test for diagnosing congenital optic nerve hypoplasia (CONH) compared to the ratio of the distance between the centre of the optic disc and the centre of the macula and the mean optic disc diameter (DM:DD ratio). Furthermore, to determine the optimal cut-off value of HRT disc area to differentiate a hypoplastic disc from a normal optic disc. METHODS: A total of 33 subjects with CONH (4-67 years old) and 160 normal subjects (5-65 years old) were recruited and underwent comprehensive eye examinations, fundus photography and HRT. Receiver operating characteristic curves for DM:DD ratio and HRT disc area were constructed based on data from the 46 CONH eyes and 160 control eyes. RESULTS: Mean (±S.D.) HRT disc area was 1.94 (±0.54) mm(2) for the control eyes and 0.84 (±0.35) mm(2) for the CONH eyes (p < 0.0001). The area under the curve (AUC) for DM:DD ratio was 0.83 (95% confidence interval: 0.76-0.90). The AUC for HRT disc area was 0.96 (95% confidence interval: 0.94-0.99). A statistically significant difference was found between AUC for HRT disc area and that for DM:DD ratio (p = 0.0004). The optimal cut-off value for HRT disc area was 1.42 mm(2) with 95% sensitivity and 85% specificity. The optimal cut-off value for DM:DD ratio was 3.20 with 78% sensitivity and 78% specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Both HRT and the DM:DD ratio are valid tests to aid diagnosis of CONH. HRT is superior to DM:DD ratio in diagnosing CONH with higher sensitivity and specificity. We suggest the optimal cut-off value for HRT disc area as 1.42 mm(2) in order to discriminate a hypoplastic disc from a normal optic disc.
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether Heidelberg Retinal Tomograph (HRT) is a valid test for diagnosing congenital optic nerve hypoplasia (CONH) compared to the ratio of the distance between the centre of the optic disc and the centre of the macula and the mean optic disc diameter (DM:DD ratio). Furthermore, to determine the optimal cut-off value of HRT disc area to differentiate a hypoplastic disc from a normal optic disc. METHODS: A total of 33 subjects with CONH (4-67 years old) and 160 normal subjects (5-65 years old) were recruited and underwent comprehensive eye examinations, fundus photography and HRT. Receiver operating characteristic curves for DM:DD ratio and HRT disc area were constructed based on data from the 46 CONH eyes and 160 control eyes. RESULTS: Mean (±S.D.) HRT disc area was 1.94 (±0.54) mm(2) for the control eyes and 0.84 (±0.35) mm(2) for the CONH eyes (p < 0.0001). The area under the curve (AUC) for DM:DD ratio was 0.83 (95% confidence interval: 0.76-0.90). The AUC for HRT disc area was 0.96 (95% confidence interval: 0.94-0.99). A statistically significant difference was found between AUC for HRT disc area and that for DM:DD ratio (p = 0.0004). The optimal cut-off value for HRT disc area was 1.42 mm(2) with 95% sensitivity and 85% specificity. The optimal cut-off value for DM:DD ratio was 3.20 with 78% sensitivity and 78% specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Both HRT and the DM:DD ratio are valid tests to aid diagnosis of CONH. HRT is superior to DM:DD ratio in diagnosing CONH with higher sensitivity and specificity. We suggest the optimal cut-off value for HRT disc area as 1.42 mm(2) in order to discriminate a hypoplastic disc from a normal optic disc.