Jason L Chien1, Mark P Ghassibi, Thipnapa Patthanathamrongkasem, Ramiz Abumasmah, Michael S Rosman, Alon Skaat, Celso Tello, Jeffrey M Liebmann, Robert Ritch, Sung Chul Park. 1. *Moise and Chella Safra Advanced Ocular Imaging Laboratory, Einhorn Clinical Research Center, New York Eye and Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai ‡Department of Ophthalmology, Manhattan Eye, Ear and Throat Hospital ∥Bernard and Shirlee Brown Glaucoma Research Laboratory, Columbia University Medical Center, Harkness Eye Institute, New York §Department of Ophthalmology, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, Hempstead, NY †George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare glaucoma diagnostic capability of global/regional macular layer parameters in different-sized grids. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Serial horizontal spectral-domain optical coherence tomography scans of macula were obtained. Automated macular grids with diameters of 3, 3.45, and 6 mm were used. For each grid, 10 parameters (total volume; average thicknesses in 9 regions) were obtained for 5 layers: macular retinal nerve fiber layer (mRNFL), ganglion cell layer (GCL), inner plexiform layer (IPL), ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GCIPL; GCL+IPL), and ganglion cell complex (GCC; mRNFL+GCL+IPL). RESULTS: Sixty-nine normal eyes (69 subjects) and 87 glaucomatous eyes (87 patients) were included. For the total volume parameter, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) in 6-mm grid were larger than the AUCs in 3- and 3.45-mm grids for GCL, GCC, GCIPL, and mRNFL (all P<0.020). For the average thickness parameters, the best AUC in 6-mm grid (T2 region for GCL, IPL, and GCIPL; I2 region for mRNFL and GCC) was greater than the best AUC in 3-mm grid for GCL, GCC, and mRNFL (P<0.045). The AUC of GCL volume (0.920) was similar to those of GCC (0.920) and GCIPL (0.909) volume. The AUC of GCL T2 region thickness (0.942) was similar to those of GCC I2 region (0.942) and GCIPL T2 region (0.934) thickness. CONCLUSIONS: Isolated macular GCL appears to be as good as GCC and GCIPL in glaucoma diagnosis, while IPL does not. Larger macular grids may be better at detecting glaucoma. Each layer has a characteristic region with the best glaucoma diagnostic capability.
PURPOSE: To compare glaucoma diagnostic capability of global/regional macular layer parameters in different-sized grids. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Serial horizontal spectral-domain optical coherence tomography scans of macula were obtained. Automated macular grids with diameters of 3, 3.45, and 6 mm were used. For each grid, 10 parameters (total volume; average thicknesses in 9 regions) were obtained for 5 layers: macular retinal nerve fiber layer (mRNFL), ganglion cell layer (GCL), inner plexiform layer (IPL), ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GCIPL; GCL+IPL), and ganglion cell complex (GCC; mRNFL+GCL+IPL). RESULTS: Sixty-nine normal eyes (69 subjects) and 87 glaucomatous eyes (87 patients) were included. For the total volume parameter, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) in 6-mm grid were larger than the AUCs in 3- and 3.45-mm grids for GCL, GCC, GCIPL, and mRNFL (all P<0.020). For the average thickness parameters, the best AUC in 6-mm grid (T2 region for GCL, IPL, and GCIPL; I2 region for mRNFL and GCC) was greater than the best AUC in 3-mm grid for GCL, GCC, and mRNFL (P<0.045). The AUC of GCL volume (0.920) was similar to those of GCC (0.920) and GCIPL (0.909) volume. The AUC of GCL T2 region thickness (0.942) was similar to those of GCC I2 region (0.942) and GCIPL T2 region (0.934) thickness. CONCLUSIONS: Isolated macular GCL appears to be as good as GCC and GCIPL in glaucoma diagnosis, while IPL does not. Larger macular grids may be better at detecting glaucoma. Each layer has a characteristic region with the best glaucoma diagnostic capability.
Authors: Vahid Mohammadzadeh; Erica Su; Alessandro Rabiolo; Lynn Shi; Sepideh Heydar Zadeh; Simon K Law; Anne L Coleman; Joseph Caprioli; Robert E Weiss; Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2021-12-21 Impact factor: 5.488
Authors: María Nieves-Moreno; José M Martínez-de-la-Casa; María P Bambo; Laura Morales-Fernández; Karel Van Keer; Evelien Vandewalle; Ingeborg Stalmans; Julián García-Feijoó Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2018-02-28 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Sasan Moghimi; Nima Fatehi; Andrew H Nguyen; Pablo Romero; Joseph Caprioli; Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Vahid Mohammadzadeh; Erica Su; Sepideh Heydar Zadeh; Simon K Law; Anne L Coleman; Joseph Caprioli; Robert E Weiss; Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Rukiye Aydın; Mine Barış; Ceren Durmaz-Engin; Lama A Al-Aswad; Dana M Blumberg; George A Cioffi; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Tongalp H Tezel; Gülgün Tezel Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-02-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Gala Beykin; Anthony M Norcia; Vivek J Srinivasan; Alfredo Dubra; Jeffrey L Goldberg Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2020-07-10 Impact factor: 21.198
Authors: Alessandro Rabiolo; Vahid Mohammadzadeh; Nima Fatehi; Esteban Morales; Anne L Coleman; Simon K Law; Joseph Caprioli; Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 3.283