Sol La Bruna1, Emmanouil Tsamis1, Zane Z Zemborain1, Zhichao Wu2,3, Carlos Gustavo De Moraes4, Robert Ritch5, Donald C Hood1,4. 1. Department of Psychology, Columbia University. 2. Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital. 3. Department of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic., Australia. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, Columbia University Medical Center. 5. Einhorn Clinical Research Center, New York Eye and Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai, New York, NY.
Abstract
PRéCIS:: Bruch's membrane opening-minimum rim width (BMO-MRW) and circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (cRNFL) thickness measures may be improved by comparing probability levels and accounting for blood vessel locations. PURPOSE: To understand the differences between 2 optical coherence tomography measures of glaucomatous damage: the BMO-MRW and cRNFL thickness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Optical coherence tomography circle scans were obtained for an early glaucoma group (EG) of 88 eyes (88 patients) with 24-2 mean deviation better than -6.0 dB, and a broader group (BG) of 188 eyes (110 patients) with 24-2 mean deviation from -0.15 to -27.0 dB. On the basis of a commercial report, the cRNFL and BMO-MRW of each hemidisc was classified as abnormal if either of the 2 superior (inferior) sectors, temporal superior and nasal superior (temporal inferior and nasal inferior), was yellow or red (P<5%); and as normal if both were green (P≥5%). In addition, a post hoc analysis identified the reasons for disagreements on the basis of the presence (or absence) of glaucomatous damage at a hemidisc level (consensus of 4 experts). RESULTS: The BMO-MRW and cRNFL measures agreed in 81.9% (broader group) and 73.9% (EG) of the hemidiscs. In both groups, an abnormal-BMO-MRW/normal-cRNFL disagreement was as common as a normal-BMO-MRW/abnormal-cRNFL. Of the 46 EG hemidisc disagreements, the number of "mistakes" for BMO-MRW (28) was nonsignificantly higher than for cRNFL (18) (P=0.15). Primary causes for disagreement were as follows: borderline significance level, a local defect, and aberrant blood vessel location. CONCLUSIONS: Although BMO-MRW and cRNFL measures agreed in the majority of hemidiscs, they still disagreed in over 25% of the EG hemidiscs. These measures may be improved by comparing actual probability levels and accounting for blood vessel locations. However, both can miss information available on retinal ganglion cell/retinal nerve fiber layer probability maps.
PRéCIS:: Bruch's membrane opening-minimum rim width (BMO-MRW) and circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (cRNFL) thickness measures may be improved by comparing probability levels and accounting for blood vessel locations. PURPOSE: To understand the differences between 2 optical coherence tomography measures of glaucomatous damage: the BMO-MRW and cRNFL thickness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Optical coherence tomography circle scans were obtained for an early glaucoma group (EG) of 88 eyes (88 patients) with 24-2 mean deviation better than -6.0 dB, and a broader group (BG) of 188 eyes (110 patients) with 24-2 mean deviation from -0.15 to -27.0 dB. On the basis of a commercial report, the cRNFL and BMO-MRW of each hemidisc was classified as abnormal if either of the 2 superior (inferior) sectors, temporal superior and nasal superior (temporal inferior and nasal inferior), was yellow or red (P<5%); and as normal if both were green (P≥5%). In addition, a post hoc analysis identified the reasons for disagreements on the basis of the presence (or absence) of glaucomatous damage at a hemidisc level (consensus of 4 experts). RESULTS: The BMO-MRW and cRNFL measures agreed in 81.9% (broader group) and 73.9% (EG) of the hemidiscs. In both groups, an abnormal-BMO-MRW/normal-cRNFL disagreement was as common as a normal-BMO-MRW/abnormal-cRNFL. Of the 46 EG hemidisc disagreements, the number of "mistakes" for BMO-MRW (28) was nonsignificantly higher than for cRNFL (18) (P=0.15). Primary causes for disagreement were as follows: borderline significance level, a local defect, and aberrant blood vessel location. CONCLUSIONS: Although BMO-MRW and cRNFL measures agreed in the majority of hemidiscs, they still disagreed in over 25% of the EG hemidiscs. These measures may be improved by comparing actual probability levels and accounting for blood vessel locations. However, both can miss information available on retinal ganglion cell/retinal nerve fiber layer probability maps.
Authors: Sami W Kabbara; Linda M Zangwill; Rusdeep Mundae; Naama Hammel; Christopher Bowd; Felipe A Medeiros; Robert N Weinreb; Akram Belghith Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Lucas A Torres; Glen P Sharpe; Donna M Hutchison; Camila S Zangalli; Reinhard O Burk; Alexandre S C Reis; Vital P Costa; Marcelo T Nicolela; Balwantray C Chauhan; Jayme R Vianna Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2019-07-24 Impact factor: 5.258
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
Authors: Hongli Yang; Haomin Luo; Christy Hardin; Yaxing Wang; Jin Wook Jeoung; Cindy Albert; Jayme R Vianna; Glen P Sharpe; Juan Reynaud; Shaban Demirel; Steven L Mansberger; Brad Fortune; Marcelo Nicolela; Stuart K Gardiner; Balwantray C Chauhan; Claude F Burgoyne Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2019-12-30 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Camila S Zangalli; Jayme R Vianna; Alexandre S C Reis; Jamil Miguel-Neto; Claude F Burgoyne; Balwantray C Chauhan; Vital P Costa Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-12-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Donald C Hood; Emmanouil Tsamis; Nikhil K Bommakanti; Devon B Joiner; Lama A Al-Aswad; Dana M Blumberg; George A Cioffi; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Carlos G De Moraes Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Zane Z Zemborain; Emmanouil Tsamis; Sol La Bruna; Ari Leshno; C Gustavo De Moraes; Robert Ritch; Donald C Hood Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2022-03-18 Impact factor: 2.290
Authors: Sol La Bruna; Anvit Rai; Grace Mao; Jennifer Kerr; Heer Amin; Zane Z Zemborain; Ari Leshno; Emmanouil Tsamis; Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Donald C Hood Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2022-03-02 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Emmanouil Tsamis; Sol La Bruna; Ari Leshno; Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Donald Hood Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2022-03-02 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Melvi D Eguia; Emmanouil Tsamis; Zane Z Zemborain; Ashley Sun; Joseph Percival; C Gustavo De Moraes; Robert Ritch; Donald C Hood Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 3.283