Xiaoyu Xu1, Hui Xiao1, Kunbei Lai1, Xinxing Guo1,2, Jingyi Luo1, Xing Liu3. 1. State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, 7 Jinsui Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou, Guangdong, PR China, 510623. 2. Wilmer Eye Institute, John Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, 7 Jinsui Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou, Guangdong, PR China, 510623. drliuxing@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Demographic, systemic and ocular factors may impact macular ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) thickness measurements. This study aimed to investigate the influences of multiple potential determinants of macular GCIPL thickness in normal Chinese adults. METHODS: This was a retrospective study conducted on 225 normal eyes from 225 healthy Chinese adults. GCIPL thickness were obtained using Cirrus high-definition optical coherence tomography (OCT). The age, gender, laterality, spherical equivalent (SE) refractive error, intraocular pressure (IOP), axial length (AL), central cornea thickness (CCT), circumpapillary retinal nerve fibre layer (pRNFL) thickness and OCT signal strength were recorded and their respective effect on GCIPL thickness parameters were evaluated. RESULTS: The mean (± SD) average, minimum, superotemporal, superior, superonasal, inferonasal, inferior, and inferotemporal GCIPL thickness was 84.56 ± 5.36, 81.32 ± 5.58, 83.08 ± 5.37, 85.70 ± 5.95, 87.15 ± 6.26, 85.07 ± 6.11, 82.46 ± 5.76, and 83.88 ± 5.59 μm, respectively. Determinants of thinner GCIPL thickness were older age (P = 0.001-0.117; effects enhanced if age over 40 years), thinner pRNFL (all P < 0.001), and weaker signal strength (all P < 0.001). No significant difference was found between males and females (P = 0.069-0.842), and between right eyes and the left eyes (P = 0.160-0.875) except that of superonasal GCIPL thickness (P < 0.001). There was no significant correlation between GCIPL thickness and SE, IOP, CCT, and AL (P = 0.135-0.968). CONCLUSIONS: Individual determinants associated with thinner GCIPL thickness were older age (particularly over 40 years of age), thinner pRNFL, and weaker OCT signal strength. This is relevant in comprehensively understanding the normative data and differentiating normal aging from abnormalities.
BACKGROUND: Demographic, systemic and ocular factors may impact macular ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) thickness measurements. This study aimed to investigate the influences of multiple potential determinants of macular GCIPL thickness in normal Chinese adults. METHODS: This was a retrospective study conducted on 225 normal eyes from 225 healthy Chinese adults. GCIPL thickness were obtained using Cirrus high-definition optical coherence tomography (OCT). The age, gender, laterality, spherical equivalent (SE) refractive error, intraocular pressure (IOP), axial length (AL), central cornea thickness (CCT), circumpapillary retinal nerve fibre layer (pRNFL) thickness and OCT signal strength were recorded and their respective effect on GCIPL thickness parameters were evaluated. RESULTS: The mean (± SD) average, minimum, superotemporal, superior, superonasal, inferonasal, inferior, and inferotemporal GCIPL thickness was 84.56 ± 5.36, 81.32 ± 5.58, 83.08 ± 5.37, 85.70 ± 5.95, 87.15 ± 6.26, 85.07 ± 6.11, 82.46 ± 5.76, and 83.88 ± 5.59 μm, respectively. Determinants of thinner GCIPL thickness were older age (P = 0.001-0.117; effects enhanced if age over 40 years), thinner pRNFL (all P < 0.001), and weaker signal strength (all P < 0.001). No significant difference was found between males and females (P = 0.069-0.842), and between right eyes and the left eyes (P = 0.160-0.875) except that of superonasal GCIPL thickness (P < 0.001). There was no significant correlation between GCIPL thickness and SE, IOP, CCT, and AL (P = 0.135-0.968). CONCLUSIONS: Individual determinants associated with thinner GCIPL thickness were older age (particularly over 40 years of age), thinner pRNFL, and weaker OCT signal strength. This is relevant in comprehensively understanding the normative data and differentiating normal aging from abnormalities.
Authors: Jean-Claude Mwanza; Donald L Budenz; David G Godfrey; Arvind Neelakantan; Fouad E Sayyad; Robert T Chang; Richard K Lee Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2014-01-03 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Jae H Kang; Juan Wu; Eunyoung Cho; Soshiro Ogata; Paul Jacques; Allen Taylor; Chung-Jung Chiu; Janey L Wiggs; Johanna M Seddon; Susan E Hankinson; Debra A Schaumberg; Louis R Pasquale Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2016-07-26 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Bruno L B Esporcatte; Andrea C Kara-José; Luiz Alberto S Melo; Luciano M Pinto; Ivan M Tavares Journal: J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-07-24 Impact factor: 1.909