| Literature DB >> 30399148 |
Patrycja Krzyżanowska-Berkowska1, Karolina Czajor1, Iwona Helemejko1, D Robert Iskander2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess whether lamina cribrosa depth (LCD) reduction and the rate of change in LCD over time (ΔLCD/Δt) is associated with retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness and the rate of RNFL thinning over time (ΔRNFL/Δt) to test the hypothesis that, in a long term, RNFL thinning occurs irrespectively to the displacement of the lamina cribrosa following glaucoma surgery.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30399148 PMCID: PMC6219770 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206040
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Examples of the extent of manual correction (refinement) of the automated segmentation necessary for adequate delineation of RNFL.
White and yellow arrows denote the places where automated segmentation underestimates and overestimates the RNFL thickness, respectively.
Fig 2An example of infrared fundus photography and a B-scan image obtained at baseline and methods for determination of lamina cribrosa (LC).
(a) An example of the acquired OCT image; (b) A reference line at an angle α to the horizontal line was set by connecting two points (red crosses) characterizing the Bruch’s membrane opening (BMO). Eight points describing the anterior LC surface (red dots) were manually placed using a specially designed graphic user interface; (c) An image rotated by α. The LC depth (LCD) was automatically calculated as the maximum perpendicular distance (corresponding to maximally depressed point) between the points of anterior LC surface and the BMO line.
Baseline data.
| Baseline variables | Trabeculectomy | NPDS | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of subjects (M/F) | 16 (7/9) | 13 (8/5) | - | |
| Mean age (years ± SD) (range) | 65.4 ± 10.1 (43–79) | 66.3 ± 11.4 (53–83) | 0.416 | |
| Mean CCT (μm ± SD) (range) | 531 ± 30 (469–605) | 528 ± 18 (486–547) | 0.361 | |
| Mean AL (mm ± SD) (range) | 23.47 ± 1.36 (21.15–25.96) | 23.49 ± 0.75 (21.98–24.61) | 0.547 | |
| Mean IOP (mmHg ± SD) (range) | 27.4 ± 10.3 (16–56) | 19.9 ± 4.0 (15–26) | ||
| Mean VF MD (dB ± SD) (range) | -15.32 ± 11.03 (-1.0 to -30.45) | -14.72 ± 10.76 (-2.98 to -28.80) | 0.441 | |
| Mean VF PSD (dB ± SD) (range) | 6.23 ± 3.58 (1.6–13.4) | 6.45 ± 2.88 (2.6–13.4) | 0.426 | |
| Average RNFL thickness (μm ± SD) (range) | 55.75 ± 11.8 (37–81) | 63.69 ± 19.2 (39–100) | 0.159 | |
| Number of medications | 3.4 ± 0.8 (2 to 4) | 2.9 ± 0.7 (2 to 4) | 0.110 | |
NPDS = non-penetrating deep sclerectomy; M = male, F = female; SD = standard deviation; CCT = central corneal thickness; IOP = intraocular pressure; VF MD = visual field mean deviation; VF PSD = visual field pattern standard deviation; RNFL = retinal nerve fiber layer; values with statistical significance are shown in bold
* Mann-Whitney rank sum test
Fig 3The time course of the intraocular pressure (IOP) (A), lamina cribrosa depth (LCD) (B) and average RNFL thickness (C) at each control visit with respect to the baseline values. The error bars denote one standard error. Note that the points on the abscissa are not equidistant.
The rate (speed) of retinal nerve fiber layer thinning over time.
The units are μm per year. Positive values correspond to thickening while negative values correspond to thinning.
| RNFL location | Over 1 month | Over 3 months | Over 6 months | Over all period until Follow-up | FU vs. 6M | FU vs. 6M ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average | 66.6 ± 113.0 (-84.0, 396.0) | -1.8 ± 35.6 (-44.0, 108.0) | -5.8 ± 13.1 (-30.0, 34.0) | -2.8 ± 4.0 (-12.6, 5.1) | ||
| Temporal Superior | 31.4 ± 120.4 (-192.0, 432.0) | -6.9 ± 30.7 (-76.0, 44.0) | -4.5 ± 14.4 (-32.0, 32.0) | -4.1 ± 5.7 (-16.0, 4.4) | 0.642 | 0.099 |
| Temporal | 45.9 ± 102.5 (-120.0, 372.0) | -3.9 ± 28.4 (-60.0, 68.0) | -3.2 ± 12.5 (-28.0, 28.0) | -1.4 ± 3.9 (-7.4, 8.6) | 0.182 | 0.070 |
| Temporal Inferior | -5.4 ± 115.3 (-216.0, 300.0) | -17.0 ± 51.7 (-156.0, 144.0) | -11.6 ± 20.9 (-74.0, 24.0) | -4.6 ± 7.7 (-33.1, 6.9) | ||
| Nasal Superior | 74.5 ± 141.7 (-108.0, 492.0) | 7.3 ± 43.9 (-108.0, 136.0) | -5.0 ± 25.2 (-106.0, 38.0) | -3.2 ± 7.3 (-29.3, 9.0) | 0.750 | 0.100 |
| Nasal | 40.6 ± 107.3 (-132.0, 300.0) | -3.2 ± 27.0 (-40.0, 72.0) | -4.5 ± 15.25 (-32.0, 40.0) | -2.1 ± 4.2 (-8.3, 7.6) | 0.142 | |
| Nasal Inferior | 67.4 ± 204.9 (-192.0, 948.0) | -0.8 ± 48.3 (-64.0, 120.0) | -9.0 ± 17.8 (-40.0, 32.0) | -3.7 ± 6.5 (-21.1, 10.7) |
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation and the range in brackets. FU–follow-up. 6M – 6 months.
Values with statistical significance are shown in bold
* Wilcoxon sign rank test for the whole group (29 subjects)
** Wilcoxon sign rank test for the group of 21 progressive subjects exceeding thinning RNFL rates that could be age related [21]
Results of univariate and multivariate linear regression analyses to determine factors associated with the IOP reduction, change in the LCD and RNFL thickness.
Listed are only those variables that achieved univariate correlation at the significance level of ≤ 0.1.
| Correlates | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable 1 | Variable 2 | β | 95% Confidence Interval | |||
| RNFL base | LCD base | –4.22 | –7.20 to –1.24 | –0.488 | ‘In’, | |
| LCD rate 1 | 0.0085 | 0.0012 to 0.016 | 0.416 | ‘Out’, 0.145 | ||
| RNFL 1pv | LCD base | –0.054 | –0.107 to –0.0004 | –0.370 | ‘Out’, 0.214 | |
| LCD rate 1pv | 0.011 | 0.0021 to 0.0202 | 0.438 | “In’, | ||
| RNFL 3pv | LCD base | –0.056 | –0.106 to –0.0051 | –0.399 | ‘In’, | |
| LCD rate 3pv | 0.017 | –0.0029 to 0.037 | 0.320 | 0.091 | ‘Out’, 0.477 | |
| RNFL 6pv | LCD base | –0.058 | –0.097 to –0.018 | –0.503 | ‘Out’, 0.179 | |
| LCD rate 6pv | 0.054 | 0.028 to 0.080 | 0.635 | ‘In’, | ||
| RNFL FUpv | LCD base | –0.048 | –0.084 to –0.013 | –0.472 | ‘Out’, 0.291 | |
| LCD rate 1pv | 0.0098 | 0.0038 to 0.016 | 0.544 | ‘Out’, 0.390 | ||
| LCD rate 3pv | 0.017 | 0.026 to 0.031 | 0.424 | ‘Out’, 0.208 | ||
| LCD rate 6pv | 0.049 | 0.026 to 0.072 | 0.647 | ‘In’, | ||
| LCD rate FUpv | 0.134 | 0.049 to 0.220 | 0.527 | ‘Out’, 0.351 | ||
| RNFL rate FUpv–6pv | LCD base | 0.011 | 0.0007 to 0.021 | 0.388 | ‘Out’, 0.946 | |
| LCD rate FUpv | –0.043 | –0.065 to –0.021 | –0.613 | ‘In’, | ||
| IOP base | age | –0.448 | –0.721 to –0.174 | –0.543 | ‘In’, | |
| LCD rate 1pv | –0.004 | –0.0084 to –0.000 | –0.369 | ‘Out’, 0.777 | ||
| LCD rate 3pv | –0.009 | –0.018 to 0.0001 | –0.364 | ‘Out’, 0.743 | ||
| LCD rate 6pv | –0.017 | –0.034 to 0.0012 | –0.346 | 0.066 | ‘Out’, 0.889 | |
| LCD rate FUpv | –0.088 | –0.141 to –0.034 | –0.542 | ‘In’, | ||
RNFL base = RNFL at the baseline; LCD base = lamina cribrosa depth at the baseline; 1pv, 3pv, 6pv–one, three, and six months post-operatively, respectively; FUpv–follow-up postoperative visit; FU–6pv = Follow-up– 6 months postoperative visit; β –slope; R–correlation coefficient; ‘In’ and ‘Out’ denotes the status of the variable and whether it is or it is not, included in the model.
Values with statistical significance are shown in bold
Fig 4Correlations between RNFL rate at FUpv–6pv and LCD rate at FUpv (top plot) and between RNFL FUpv and LCD rate at 6pv (bottom plot).
Fig 5The time course of RNFL thinning with the corresponding IOP and LCD measurements for the right eye of a 62-year-old male patient.
FUpv at 20 months. G = global, TS = temporal superior, T = temporal, TI = temporal inferior, NS = nasal superior, N = nasal, NI = nasal inferior.
Fig 6The time course of RNFL thinning with the corresponding IOP and LCD measurements for the left eye of an 81-year-old female patient.
FUpv at 21 months. G = global, TS = temporal superior, T = temporal, TI = temporal inferior, NS = nasal superior, N = nasal, NI = nasal inferior.