These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Glaucoma diagnostic ability of ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer thickness differs according to the location of visual field loss.
    Author: Shin HY, Park HL, Jung KI, Choi JA, Park CK.
    Journal: Ophthalmology; 2014 Jan; 121(1):93-99. PubMed ID: 23962652.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) or circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (cpRNFL) is better at distinguishing eyes with early glaucoma from normal eyes on the basis of the the initial location of the visual field (VF) damage. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-four patients with early glaucoma and 43 normal subjects were enrolled. The patients with glaucoma were subdivided into 2 groups according to the location of VF damage: (1) an isolated parafoveal scotoma (PFS, N = 42) within 12 points of a central 10 degrees in 1 hemifield or (2) an isolated peripheral nasal step (PNS, N = 42) within the nasal periphery outside 10 degrees of fixation in 1 hemifield. METHODS: All patients underwent macular and optic disc scanning using Cirrus high-definition optical coherence tomography (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA). The GCIPL and cpRNFL thicknesses were compared between groups. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were calculated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparison of diagnostic ability using AUCs. RESULTS: The average and minimum GCIPL of the PFS group were significantly thinner than those of the PNS group, whereas there was no significant difference in the average retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness between the 2 groups. The AUCs of the average (0.962) and minimum GCIPL (0.973) thicknesses did not differ from that of the average RNFL thickness (0.972) for discriminating glaucomatous changes between normal and all glaucoma eyes (P =0.566 and 0.974, respectively). In the PFS group, the AUCs of the average (0.988) and minimum GCIPL (0.999) thicknesses were greater than that of the average RNFL thickness (0.961, P =0.307 and 0.125, respectively). However, the AUCs of the average (0.936) and minimum GCIPL (0.947) thicknesses were lower than that of the average RNFL thickness (0.984) in the PNS group (P =0.032 and 0.069, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The GCIPL parameters were more valuable than the cpRNFL parameters for detecting glaucoma in eyes with parafoveal VF loss, and the cpRNFL parameters were better than the GCIPL parameters for detecting glaucoma in eyes with peripheral VF loss. Clinicians should know that the diagnostic capability of macular GCIPL parameters depends largely on the location of the VF loss.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]