| Literature DB >> 33944891 |
Ayaka Murase1, Ryo Asaoka2,3, Tatsuya Inoue1, Koichi Nagura1, Rei Arasaki1, Kentaro Nakamura1, Kazuyoshi Okawa1, Shin Tanaka1, Yasuo Yanagi1, Maiko Maruyama-Inoue1, Kazuaki Kadonosono1.
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate the associations between visual function and the optical coherence tomography (OCT) parameters in eyes with idiopathic epiretinal membrane (ERM).Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33944891 PMCID: PMC8107485 DOI: 10.1167/iovs.62.6.6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci ISSN: 0146-0404 Impact factor: 4.799
Figure 1.Measurement of OCT parameters in eyes with ERMs. (A) Vertical and horizontal scans 5.8 mm in length (scan angle 20°) were used for the analysis. (B) Each OCT image through the fovea (1024 × 496 pixel) was obtained in eyes with idiopathic ERMs. (C) The following OCT parameters were calculated using ImageJ software: CRT (white arrow), maximum retinal fold depth (yellow bar), and SUKIMA (blue area).
Subject Demographics (N = 39 Eyes; 24 Right, 15 Left)
| Variable | Mean ± SD (Range) |
|---|---|
| Age (y) | 69.6 ± 8.9 (52–88) |
| Refractive error (diopter) | –1.12 ± 3.14 (–9.875 to 3.00) |
| logMAR visual acuity | 0.21 ± 0.28 (–0.079 to 1.0) |
| Mave score | 0.79 ± 0.43 (0.1–2.0) |
| MH score | 0.78 ± 0.50 (0–2.0) |
| MV score | 0.80 ± 0.44 (0.2–2.0) |
| Maximum retinal fold depth (μm) | 89.5 ± 37.5 (25–193) |
| Central retinal thickness (μm) | 400.1 ± 98.1 (154–585) |
| SUKIMAh (mm2) | 0.060 ± 0.044 (0.0068–0.22) |
| SUKIMAv (mm2) | 0.10 ± 0.12 (0.026–0.76) |
| SUKIMAave (mm2) | 0.081 ± 0.076 (0.024–0.49) |
Figure 2.Correlation between SUKIMAave and visual functions. There were significant correlations between (A) SUKIMAave and logMAR VA (r = 0.397; 95% CI, 0.0936–0.633; P = 0.012) and (B) SUKIMAave and degree of metamorphopsia (Mave) (r = 0.578; 95% CI, 0.322–0.756; P = 0.00012, linear regression analysis).
Relationship Between the OCT Parameters and logMAR Visual Acuity
| Univariate Analysis | Optimal Model | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Coefficient | SE |
| Coefficient | SE |
|
| Age | 0.0089 | 0.0050 | 0.080 | 0.012 | 0.0042 | 0.0074 |
| Refractive error | 0.020 | 0.014 | 0.18 | N.S. | N.S. | N.S. |
| Central retinal thickness | 0.0012 | 0.00043 | 0.007 | 0.0011 | 0.00041 | 0.015 |
| Maximum retinal fold depth | 0.0030 | 0.0011 | 0.0099 | NS | NS | NS |
| SUKIMAave | 1.46 | 0.56 | 0.012 | 1.12 | 0.53 | 0.041 |
Relationship Between OCT Parameters and Mave
| Univariate Analysis | Optimal Model | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Coefficient | SE |
| Coefficient | SE |
|
| Age | 0.0032 | 0.0079 | 0.69 | N.S. | N.S. | N.S. |
| Refractive error | 0.0086 | 0.022 | 0.70 | N.S. | N.S. | N.S. |
| Central retinal thickness | –0.000059 | 0.00072 | 0.94 | –0.0012 | 0.00061 | 0.055 |
| Maximum retinal fold depth | 0.0038 | 0.0018 | 0.038 | NS | NS | NS |
| SUKIMAave | 3.27 | 0.76 | 0.00012 | 3.87 | 0.79 | <0.0001 |
Figure 3.Relationships between SUKIMA and metamorphopsia score. There were significant correlations between (A) SUKIMAv and MH score (r = 0.494; 95% CI, 0.211–0.700; P = 0.0014), (B) SUKIMAh and MV score (r = 0.405; 95% CI, 0.103–0.639; P = 0.011), (C) SUKIMAh and MH score (r = 0.599; 95% CI, 0.349–0.769; P < 0.0001), and (D) SUKIMAv and MV score (r = 0.486; 95% CI, 0.202–0.695; P = 0.0017, linear regression analysis).
Figure 4.Relationships between SUKIMA and OCT parameters. (A) There was a significant relationship between SUKIMAave and the maximum retinal fold depth (r = 0.600; 95% CI, 0.350–0.769; P < 0.0001). (B) A significant correlation was also observed between SUKIMAave and CRT (r = 0.385; 95% CI, 0.0792–0.625; P = 0.016, linear regression analysis).
Figure 5.Representative cases with good and poor correlation between SUKIMA and metamorphopsia score. (A) Vertical and horizontal scans of 85-year-old female with a good correlation between SUKIMA and metamorphopsia score. SUKIMAv, SUKIMAh, and SUKIMAave were 0.062, 0.033, and 0.047 mm2, respectively. MH, MV, Mave score, and logMAR VA were 0.8, 0.5, 0.65, and 0.523, respectively. (B) This 71-year-old female showed a good correlation between SUKIMA and metamorphopsia score. SUKIMAv, SUKIMAh, and SUKIMAave were 0.137, 0.107, and 0.122 mm2, and MH, MV, Mave score, and logMAR VA were 0.9, 0.7, 0.8, and 0.155, respectively. (C) This 72-year-old female showed a poor correlation between SUKIMA and metamorphopsia score. SUKIMAv, SUKIMAh, and SUKIMAave were 0.061, 0.0083, and 0.035 mm2, and MH, MV, Mave score, and logMAR VA were 1.4, 1.7, 1.55, and 0.155, respectively. Of note, ERM was not fully identified in both vertical and horizontal scans, whereas retinal folds were observed (white arrows). (D) This 84-year-old male showed a poor correlation between SUKIMA and metamorphopsia score. SUKIMAv, SUKIMAh, and SUKIMAave were 0.120, 0.067, and 0.093 mm2, and MH, MV, Mave score, and logMAR VA were 1.7, 2.0, 1.85, and 0.398, respectively. ERM at the temporal region was not identified, and it is possible that the SUKIMA score might have been underestimated in this case.