| Literature DB >> 31697709 |
Soo Ji Jeon1, Hae-Young Lopilly Park1, Kyoung In Jung1, Chan Kee Park1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the relationship between pattern electroretinogram (PERG) and optic disc morphology in glaucoma suspect and glaucoma.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31697709 PMCID: PMC6837750 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220992
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Representative waveform recording from PERG examination.
Characteristics of glaucoma suspect and normal tension glaucoma subjects.
| Glaucoma suspect | Normal tension glaucoma | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, y | 54.34 (±12.78) | 56.32 (±13.36) | 0.270 |
| Male:female | 30:56 | 61:84 | 0.366 |
| Average RNFL thickness, μm | 90.83 (±6.93) | 70.17 (±11.64) | <0.001 |
| Average cup disc ratio | 0.66 (±6.93) | 0.75 (±6.93) | <0.001 |
| MD, dB | -0.83 (±1.61) | -7.04 (±7.25) | <0.001 |
| PSD, dB | 1.65 (±0.49) | 5.88 (±4.40) | <0.001 |
| MD, dB | -4.26 (±3.03) | -9.48 (±6.04) | <0.001 |
| PSD, dB | 3.08 (±1.25) | 5.15 (±2.38) | <0.001 |
| P50 latency, ms | 49.53 (±3.15) | 50.98 (±6.37) | 0.022 |
| N95 latency, ms | 98.16 (±5.88) | 100.93 (±10.61) | 0.027 |
| P50 amplitude, μV | 3.14 (±0.86) | 2.47 (±0.93) | <0.001 |
| N95 amplitude, μV | 5.79 (±1.34) | 4.28 (±1.67) | <0.001 |
The ratios between males and females were compared using chi-square test. The others were compared using Student’s t test.
First and second mean values and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of each parameter in pattern electroretinogram.
| Mean value at first time | Mean value at second time | ICC | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P50 latency, ms | 50.15 (±3.47) | 50.40 (±3.26) | 0.378 | 0.222 |
| N95 latency, ms | 100.05 (±6.33) | 101.01 (±4.44) | 0.101 | 0.431 |
| P50 amplitude, μV | 4.52 (±1.03) | 4.30 (±0.66) | 0.772 | 0.011 |
| N95 amplitude, μV | 7.63 (±1.66) | 7.51 (±1.51) | 0.989 | <0.001 |
Correlation coefficients for RNFL thickness and GCIPL thickness with pattern ERG and perimetry in total subjects.
| RNFL thickness | GCIPL thickness | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| r | r | |||
| P50 latency | -0.043 | 0.519 | 0.068 | 0.371 |
| N95 latency | -0.091 | 0.170 | -0.002 | 0.977 |
| P50 amplitude | 0.368 | <0.001 | 0.386 | <0.001 |
| N95 amplitude | 0.533 | <0.001 | 0.557 | <0.001 |
| SITA 24–2 MD | 0.645 | <0.001 | 0.586 | <0.001 |
| FDT 24–2 MD | 0.639 | <0.001 | 0.597 | <0.001 |
Pearson correlation analysis was used.
Correlation coefficients for RNFL thickness and GCIPL thickness with pattern ERG and perimetry after grouping glaucoma suspect and normal tension glaucoma.
| RNFL thickness | GCIPL thickness | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glaucoma suspect | Normal tension glaucoma | Glaucoma suspect | Normal tension glaucoma | ||||||
| r | r | R | R | ||||||
| P50 latency | -0.148 | 0.175 | 0.106 | 0.204 | 0.001 | 0.995 | 0.098 | 0.297 | |
| N95 latency | 0.014 | 0.901 | 0.017 | 0.836 | 0.260 | 0.054 | 0.031 | 0.742 | |
| P50 amplitude | 0.150 | 0.172 | 0.216 | 0.009 | 0.285 | 0.029 | 0.279 | 0.003 | |
| N95 amplitude | 0.243 | 0.024 | 0.401 | <0.001 | 0.176 | 0.177 | 0.506 | <0.001 | |
| SITA 24–2 MD | 0.129 | 0.269 | 0.557 | <0.001 | 0.154 | 0.291 | 0.505 | <0.001 | |
| FDT 24–2 MD | 0.096 | 0.514 | 0.586 | <0.001 | 0.194 | 0.212 | 0.486 | <0.001 | |
Pearson correlation analysis was used.
Fig 2Scatter plot showing parameters of pattern ERG and SITA 24–2 MD by average RNFL thickness.
Fig 3Scatter plot showing parameters of pattern ERG and FDT 24–2 MD by average RNFL thickness.
Fig 4Linear and logarithmic R square values between average RNFL thickness and functional parameters (pattern ERG amplitude, MD of perimetry).
Correlation coefficients for HRT parameters with pattern ERG amplitude in glaucoma suspect subjects.
| P50 amplitude | N95 amplitude | SITA 24–2 MD | FDT 24–2 MD | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r | r | r | r | |||||
| Linear CDR | -0.419 | 0.012 | -0.297 | 0.083 | -0.029 | 0.894 | 0.162 | 0.472 |
| CSM | -0.405 | 0.016 | -0.335 | 0.049 | -0.041 | 0.847 | 0.138 | 0.540 |
| Rim area | -0.023 | 0.898 | 0.058 | 0.741 | -0.101 | 0.637 | 0.134 | 0.551 |
| Rim volume | 0.347 | 0.041 | 0.311 | 0.069 | 0.282 | 0.182 | 0.119 | 0.598 |
| HVC | 0.380 | 0.024 | 0.345 | 0.042 | 0.235 | 0.269 | 0.103 | 0.648 |
| Mean RNFL | 0.412 | 0.014 | 0.301 | 0.079 | 0.338 | 0.106 | -0.027 | 0.907 |
| Rim steepness | 0.085 | 0.626 | -0.105 | 0.546 | -0.467 | 0.021 | -0.065 | 0.772 |
| Cup size | -0.288 | 0.093 | -0.286 | 0.096 | 0.075 | 0.727 | 0.074 | 0.743 |
| Cup depth | -0.106 | 0.546 | 0.135 | 0.439 | 0.436 | 0.033 | -0.071 | 0.754 |
| Glaucoma probability | -0.338 | 0.047 | -0.220 | 0.204 | 0.007 | 0.974 | -0.015 | 0.947 |
Pearson correlation analysis was used.
* P value less than 0.05
Correlation coefficients for HRT parameters with pattern ERG amplitude in normal tension glaucoma subjects.
| P50 amplitude | N95 amplitude | SITA 24–2 MD | FDT 24–2 MD | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r | r | r | r | |||||
| Linear CDR | 0.007 | 0.947 | -0.204 | 0.053 | -0.359 | 0.003 | -0.406 | 0.001 |
| CSM | 0.128 | 0.228 | -0.064 | 0.552 | -0.191 | 0.125 | -0.337 | 0.009 |
| Rim area | 0.071 | 0.504 | 0.178 | 0.094 | 0.299 | 0.015 | 0.356 | 0.006 |
| Rim volume | 0.152 | 0.152 | 0.270 | 0.010 | 0.347 | 0.004 | 0.347 | 0.007 |
| HVC | 0.050 | 0.638 | 0.062 | 0.561 | 0.005 | 0.969 | -0.073 | 0.584 |
| Mean RNFL | 0.267 | 0.011 | 0.317 | 0.002 | 0.452 | <0.001 | 0.355 | 0.006 |
| Rim steepness | 0.027 | 0.809 | -0.014 | 0.901 | 0.248 | 0.054 | 0.334 | 0.014 |
| Cup size | 0.198 | 0.072 | -0.021 | 0.849 | -0.047 | 0.719 | -0.072 | 0.605 |
| Cup depth | 0.212 | 0.054 | 0.138 | 0.214 | -0.052 | 0.689 | -0.031 | 0.826 |
| Glaucoma probability | 0.058 | 0.604 | -0.166 | 0.133 | -0.263 | 0.041 | -0.254 | 0.064 |
Pearson correlation analysis was used.
* P value less than 0.05
Fig 5Correlation coefficients between P50 amplitude and HRT parameters.
* P value less than 0.05.
Fig 6Correlation coefficients between N95 amplitude and HRT parameters.
* P value less than 0.05.