| Literature DB >> 35279128 |
Yanhua Pang1,2, Zhi Tan3, Wei Mo4, Xinxin Chen5, Jinfen Wei6, Qing Guo6, Qin Zhong3, Jingxiang Zhong7,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: RNFL thickness measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT) and visual pathway measured by diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) can be used to predict visual field recovery, respectively. However, the relationship between RNFL thickness and visual pathway injury in patients with pituitary adenoma (PA) remains unclear. This study aims to evaluate the combining DTI and OCT methods in observing the microstructural change in the visual pathway in patients with PA.Entities:
Keywords: Diffusion tensor imaging; Fractional anisotropy; Optical coherence tomography; Pituitary adenoma; Visual pathway
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35279128 PMCID: PMC8917617 DOI: 10.1186/s12886-022-02320-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Ophthalmol ISSN: 1471-2415 Impact factor: 2.209
Fig. 1Represented image of values ADC and FA detected by OCT from four patients
Baseline characteristic of the two groups
| Study group ( | Control group ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 53.655 ± 15.06 | 50.827 ± 15.01 | 0.477 | |
| Sex | ||||
| Male | 12 | 13 | 0.07 | >0.05 |
| Female | 17 | 16 |
Comparison of CP-RNFL thickness between the study group and control group (μm)
| Average CP-RNFL | Nasal CP-RNFL | Supra CP-RNFL | Temporal CP-RNFL | Inferior CP-RNFL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study group ( | 96.916 ± 23.58 | 67.033 ± 23.69 | 120.716 ± 35.17 | 68.650 ± 21.57 | 128.033 ± 32.31 |
| Control group ( | 108.529 ± 13.78 | 76.970 ± 18.79 | 132.479 ± 18.06 | 87.176 ± 24.14 | 136.352 ± 21.73 |
| 0.010 | 0.039 | 0.036 | 0.000 | 0.184 |
Comparison of macular GCL thickness between the study group and control group (μm)
| Center (1 mm diameter) | Nasal internal ring | Supra internal ring | Temporal internal ring | Inferior internal ring | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study group ( | 23.483 ± 8.79 | 18.112 ± 15.93 | 43.983 ± 11.85 | 45.322 ± 11.88 | 41.129 ± 10.27 |
| Control group ( | 25.416 ± 4.16 | 50.333 ± 5.95 | 52.833 ± 7.37 | 46.305 ± 7.59 | 50.555 ± 7.02 |
| 0.145 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.657 | 0.000 |
Comparison of DTI FA value between the study group and control group
| Right optic nerve | Left optic nerve | Optic chiasma | Right optic tract | Left optic tract | Right optic emission | Left optic emission | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study group ( | 0.432 ± 0.11 | 0.420 ± 0.08 | 0.236 ± 0.10 | 0.369 ± 0.12 | 0.377 ± 0.13 | 0.481 ± 0.06 | 0.465 ± 0.08 |
| Control group ( | 0.493 ± 0.08 | 0.483 ± 0.10 | 0.339 ± 0.04 | 0.464 ± 0.09 | 0.471 ± 0.09 | 0.504 ± 0.05 | 0.519 ± 0.06 |
| 0.025 | 0.013 | 0.000 | 0.002 | 0.004 | 0.158 | 0.008 |
FA fractional anisotropy, ADC apparent diffusion coefficient, DTI diffusion tensor imaging
Comparison of DTI ADC value between the study group and control group
| Right optic nerve | Left optic nerve | Optic chiasma | Right optic tract | Left optic tract | Right optic emission | Left optic emission | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study group ( | 1.641 ± 0.34 | 1.598 ± 0.38 | 1.805 ± 0.29 | 1.261 ± 0.38 | 1.179 ± 0.34 | 0.866 ± 0.06 | 0.872 ± 0.07 |
| Control group ( | 1.463 ± 0.27 | 1.332 ± 0.27 | 1.499 ± 0.56 | 1.207 ± 0.30 | 1.260 ± 0.35 | 0.870 ± 0.06 | 0.850 ± 0.06 |
| 0.034 | 0.004 | 0.009 | 0.970 | 0.380 | 0.802 | 0.276 |
FA fractional anisotropy, ADC apparent diffusion coefficient, DTI diffusion tensor imaging
Correlation between BCVA, MD value, tumor diameter line and DTI parameters
| Optic nerve FA | Optic chiasma FA | Optic tract FA | Optic nerve ADC | Optic tract ADC | Optic radiation ADC | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r | r | r | r | r | r | |||||||
| BCVA (logMAR) | 0.235 | 0.220 | ||||||||||
| MD value | 0.331 | 0.080 | 0.308 | 0.104 | ||||||||
| Epitaxial height of suprasellar extension | 0.151 | 0.433 | 0.261 | 0.171 | 0.193 | 0.551 | ||||||
| Horizontal diameter | −0.026 | 0.893 | −0.153 | 0.429 | −0.073 | 0.706 | 0.038 | 0.844 | 0.29 | 0.128 | ||
| Vertical diameter | −0.285 | 0.134 | 0.196 | 0.309 | 0.134 | 0.489 | ||||||
Correlation between CP-RNFL thickness and DTI parameters
| Versus | Average CP-RNFL | Nasal CP-RNFL | Supra CP-RNFL | Temporal CP-RNFL | Inferior CP-RNFL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Correlation coefficient of ipsilateral optic nerve FA value | 0.513 | 0.495 | 0.410 | 0.340 | 0.518 |
| 0.004 | 0.006 | 0.027 | 0.089 | 0.004 | |
| Correlation coefficient of optic chiasma FA value | 0.444 | 0.436 | 0.398 | 0.504 | 0.419 |
| 0.016 | 0.008 | 0.033 | 0.005 | 0.024 | |
| Correlation coefficient of optic tract FA value | 0.369 | 0.372 | 0.315 | 0.176 | 0.438 |
| 0.049 | 0.047 | 0.096 | 0.388 | 0.018 | |
| Correlation coefficient of optic rdition FA | 0.307 | 0.474 | 0.338 | 0.325 | 0.394 |
| 0.127 | 0.009 | 0.091 | 0.085 | 0.034 | |
| Correlation coefficient of ipsilateral optic nerve ADC value | −0.291 | −0.403 | −0.340 | −0.354 | −0.307 |
| 0.150 | 0.030 | 0.089 | 0.076 | 0.127 | |
| Correlation coefficient of optic rdition ADC value | −0.336 | −0.379 | − 0.304 | −0.259 | − 0.206 |
| 0.093 | 0.042 | 0.131 | 0.202 | 0.305 |
FA fractional anisotropy, ADC apparent diffusion coefficient, DTI diffusion tensor imaging, CP-RNFL circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber layer. *P < 0.05
Fig. 2Correlation between GCL thickness and FA values of the optic chiasma