Hyun-Kyung Cho1,2, Jong Moon Park3,4, Changwon Kee5. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Gyeongsang National University Changwon Hospital, Gyeongsang National University, School of Medicine, Changwon, Republic of Korea. chohk@gnu.ac.kr. 2. lnstitute of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju, Republic of Korea. chohk@gnu.ac.kr. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Gyeongsang National University Changwon Hospital, Gyeongsang National University, School of Medicine, Changwon, Republic of Korea. 4. lnstitute of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju, Republic of Korea. 5. Department of Ophthalmology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of optic disc size on correlation between Bruch's membrane opening-minimum rim width (BMO-MRW) and peripapillary retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) thickness from three scan circles. METHODS: In this retrospective, observational study, non-glaucomatous eyes without visible RNFL defect or visual field loss were included. A total of 101 subjects were distributed into three groups based on disc size: group 1 (n = 26), small disc (disc area < 1.63 mm2); group 2 (n = 40), regular size disc (disc area: 1.63~2.43 mm2); and group 3 (n = 35), large disc (disc area > 2.43 mm2). All patients underwent standard ophthalmic examinations including confocal scanning laser tomography and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. RESULTS: Global BMO-MRW was the thickest in group 1 (314.96 ± 60.38 μm, BMO area: 1.72 ± 0.45 mm2), followed by that in group 2 (259.03 ± 40.04 μm, BMO area: 2.29 ± 0.31 mm2). It was the thinnest in group 3 (236.74 ± 31.21 μm, BMO area: 2.91 ± 0.31 mm2; p < 0.001, Kruskal-Wallis test). Correlation between global BMO-MRW value and RNFL thickness was the strongest in group 3 (Spearman's rho = 0.656), followed by that in group 2 (rho = 0.572). It was the weakest in group 1 (rho = 0.147). There was no significant difference in global RNFL thickness by disc size from either the 3.5 mm, 4.1 mm, or 4.7 mm diameter scan circles (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Correlation between BMO-MRW values and RNFL thickness differed significantly according to disc size. Thus, when we assess BMO-MRW in relation to RNFL thickness, disc size may need to be taken into consideration.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of optic disc size on correlation between Bruch's membrane opening-minimum rim width (BMO-MRW) and peripapillary retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) thickness from three scan circles. METHODS: In this retrospective, observational study, non-glaucomatous eyes without visible RNFL defect or visual field loss were included. A total of 101 subjects were distributed into three groups based on disc size: group 1 (n = 26), small disc (disc area < 1.63 mm2); group 2 (n = 40), regular size disc (disc area: 1.63~2.43 mm2); and group 3 (n = 35), large disc (disc area > 2.43 mm2). All patients underwent standard ophthalmic examinations including confocal scanning laser tomography and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. RESULTS: Global BMO-MRW was the thickest in group 1 (314.96 ± 60.38 μm, BMO area: 1.72 ± 0.45 mm2), followed by that in group 2 (259.03 ± 40.04 μm, BMO area: 2.29 ± 0.31 mm2). It was the thinnest in group 3 (236.74 ± 31.21 μm, BMO area: 2.91 ± 0.31 mm2; p < 0.001, Kruskal-Wallis test). Correlation between global BMO-MRW value and RNFL thickness was the strongest in group 3 (Spearman's rho = 0.656), followed by that in group 2 (rho = 0.572). It was the weakest in group 1 (rho = 0.147). There was no significant difference in global RNFL thickness by disc size from either the 3.5 mm, 4.1 mm, or 4.7 mm diameter scan circles (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Correlation between BMO-MRW values and RNFL thickness differed significantly according to disc size. Thus, when we assess BMO-MRW in relation to RNFL thickness, disc size may need to be taken into consideration.
Authors: Alexandre S C Reis; Neil O'Leary; Hongli Yang; Glen P Sharpe; Marcelo T Nicolela; Claude F Burgoyne; Balwantray C Chauhan Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2012-04-18 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Philip Enders; Friederike Schaub; Werner Adler; Roman Nikoluk; Manuel M Hermann; Ludwig M Heindl Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Boris Povazay; Bernd Hofer; Boris Hermann; Angelika Unterhuber; James E Morgan; Carl Glittenberg; Susanne Binder; Wolfgang Drexler Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2007 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.170
Authors: Philip Enders; Friederike Schaub; Manuel M Hermann; Claus Cursiefen; Ludwig M Heindl Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2016-04-26 Impact factor: 4.638
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: Jonas M D Gmeiner; Wolfgang A Schrems; Christian Y Mardin; Robert Laemmer; Friedrich E Kruse; Laura M Schrems-Hoesl Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 4.799