H Uchida1, S Ugurlu, J Caprioli. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the incidence and degree of progression of peripapillary atrophy in progressive and nonprogressive glaucoma. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 75 eyes of 75 patients were examined. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Qualitative assessment of optic disc, peripapillary atrophy,and visual field change was performed by three experienced, masked, independent observers. METHODS: Rim-disc area ratio and peripapillary atrophy-disc area ratio were measured at baseline and follow-up with computer-aided planimetry. RESULTS: Among 75 eyes studied with an average duration of follow-up of 8 years (range, 4-19 years), 33 (44%) showed progressive optic disc damage. Twenty-one (64%) of 33 eyes with progressive disc damage showed peripapillary atrophy progression, and 7 (17%) of 42 eyes without progressive disc damage showed peripapillary atrophy progression; this difference was significant (P < 0.01). In groups with and without peripapillary atrophy, no statistically significant differences were found for mean intraocular pressure, baseline rim-disc area ratio, or baseline peripapillary atrophy-disc area ratio. However, optic disc progression and visual field progression were statistically more frequent in the group with peripapillary atrophy progression (75% and 54%, respectively) than in the group without peripapillary atrophy progression (26% and 11%, respectively) (P < 0.01). There was a statistically significant correlation between measurements of peripapillary atrophy area increase and disc rim loss over time (r = -0.35, P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Progression of peripapillary atrophy is associated with progressive optic disc damage and progressive visual field loss in glaucoma and may be used as a marker for progressive glaucomatous damage.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the incidence and degree of progression of peripapillary atrophy in progressive and nonprogressive glaucoma. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 75 eyes of 75 patients were examined. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Qualitative assessment of optic disc, peripapillary atrophy,and visual field change was performed by three experienced, masked, independent observers. METHODS: Rim-disc area ratio and peripapillary atrophy-disc area ratio were measured at baseline and follow-up with computer-aided planimetry. RESULTS: Among 75 eyes studied with an average duration of follow-up of 8 years (range, 4-19 years), 33 (44%) showed progressive optic disc damage. Twenty-one (64%) of 33 eyes with progressive disc damage showed peripapillary atrophy progression, and 7 (17%) of 42 eyes without progressive disc damage showed peripapillary atrophy progression; this difference was significant (P < 0.01). In groups with and without peripapillary atrophy, no statistically significant differences were found for mean intraocular pressure, baseline rim-disc area ratio, or baseline peripapillary atrophy-disc area ratio. However, optic disc progression and visual field progression were statistically more frequent in the group with peripapillary atrophy progression (75% and 54%, respectively) than in the group without peripapillary atrophy progression (26% and 11%, respectively) (P < 0.01). There was a statistically significant correlation between measurements of peripapillary atrophy area increase and disc rim loss over time (r = -0.35, P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Progression of peripapillary atrophy is associated with progressive optic disc damage and progressive visual field loss in glaucoma and may be used as a marker for progressive glaucomatous damage.
Authors: Edward Lai; Gadi Wollstein; Lori Lyn Price; Lelia A Paunescu; Paul C Stark; James G Fujimoto; Joel S Schuman Journal: Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Date: 2003 Nov-Dec
Authors: K Yasuzumi; K Ohno-Matsui; T Yoshida; A Kojima; N Shimada; S Futagami; T Tokoro; M Mochizuki Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Carlos Gustavo De Moraes; Scott Ketner; Christopher C Teng; Joshua R Ehrlich; Ali S Raza; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Robert Ritch; Donald C Hood Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2011-07-07 Impact factor: 2.379
Authors: Robert Laemmer; Folkert K Horn; Arne Viestenz; Barbara Link; Anselm G Juenemann; Christian Y Mardin Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2006-08-01 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Patricia Isabel C Manalastas; Akram Belghith; Robert N Weinreb; Jost B Jonas; Min Hee Suh; Adeleh Yarmohammadi; Felipe A Medeiros; Christopher A Girkin; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Linda M Zangwill Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 5.258