Journals / BEYOGLU EYE JOURNAL / 2017 / Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of Corneal Biomechanical Properties of Physiological Macrodiscs and Glaucomatous Macrodiscs

Pages
3–8
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Mean CCT of macrodisc group was higher than that observed in control or glaucoma patients (p=0.015, p=0.045).Conclusion: It was concluded that OCT analyses can help differentiate healthy macrodiscs from glaucomatous discs.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: This study was designed to compare optic nerve head (ONH) parameters and corneal biomechanical properties of healthy and glaucomatous macrodiscs.Methods: This cross-sectional study included total of 234 eyes, of which 92 served as normal controls, 92 had healthy macrodiscs, and 50 had glaucomatous macrodiscs.
📊
Key Findings & Data:All OCT and ORA parameters of healthy and glaucomatous macrodiscs were compared.Results: Optic disc area of healthy macrodiscs and glaucomatous macrodiscs was similar, and larger than observed in control group (p=0.70, p=0.0001, respectively).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Mean CCT of macrodisc group was higher than that observed in control or glaucoma patients (p=0.015, p=0.045).Conclusion: It was concluded that OCT analyses can help differentiate healthy macrodiscs from glaucomatous discs.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objectives: This study was designed to compare optic nerve head (ONH) parameters and corneal biomechanical properties of healthy and glaucomatous macrodiscs.Methods: This cross-sectional study included total of 234 eyes, of which 92 served as normal controls, 92 had healthy macrodiscs, and 50 had glaucomatous macrodiscs. Measurement of ONH parameters in all pıatients was performed using optic coherence tomography (OCT). Corneal hysteresis (CH) was measured in each patient using Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA; Reichert, Inc., Depew, NY, USA). Central corneal thickness (CCT) was determined by ultrasonic pachymetry. All OCT and ORA parameters of healthy and glaucomatous macrodiscs were compared.Results: Optic disc area of healthy macrodiscs and glaucomatous macrodiscs was similar, and larger than observed in control group (p=0.70, p=0.0001, respectively). Rim area was significantly thinner in glaucoma group than healthy macrodisc group or control group. (p=0.0001, p=0.022, respectively) Mean cup area of glaucomatous discs was larger than healthy macrodiscs (p=0.001). Cup/disc (C/D) area ratio, and horizontal and vertical C/D ratios were higher in glaucoma group than healthy macrodisc group (p=0.002, p=0.002, p=0.018, respectively) ORA analyses revealed that CH of glaucoma patients was lower than that of healthy macrodisc or control group (p=0.048, p=0.035, respectively), whereas, mean CH of macrodisc group was similar to that of control group (p=0.988). Mean CCT of macrodisc group was higher than that observed in control or glaucoma patients (p=0.015, p=0.045).Conclusion: It was concluded that OCT analyses can help differentiate healthy macrodiscs from glaucomatous discs. CH and corneal thickness measurements of healthy macrodiscs are greater than those of glaucomatous optic discs.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖNMEZ, F. E., ALTAN, A. C., ŞATANA, B., BAŞARIR, B., PAŞAOĞLU, I., TAŞKAPILI, M. (2017). Comparison of Corneal Biomechanical Properties of Physiological Macrodiscs and Glaucomatous Macrodiscs. BEYOGLU EYE JOURNAL, Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 1, 3–8. https://ajindex.com/articles/148140

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Sullivan-Mee M, Billingsley SC, Patel AD, Halverson KD, Alldredge BR, Qualls C. Ocular Response Analyzer in subjects with and without glaucoma. Optom Vis Sci 2008;85:463-70
  2. Pensyl D, Sullivan-Mee M, Torres-Monte M, Halverson K, Qualls C. Combining corneal hysteresis with central corneal thickness and intraocular pressure for glaucoma risk assessment. Eye (Lond) 2012;26:1349-56
  3. Johnson CS, Mian SI, Moroi S, Epstein D, Izatt J, Afshari NA. Role of corneal elasticity in damping of intraocular pressure. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007;48:2540-4
  4. Liu J, He X. Corneal stiffness affects IOP elevation during rapid volume change in the eye. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2009;50:2224-9
  5. Congdon NG, Broman AT, Bandeen-Roche K, Grover D, Quigley HA. Central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis associated with glaucoma damage. Am J Ophthalmol 2006;141:868- 75
  6. De Moraes CV, Hill V, Tello C, Liebmann JM, Ritch R. Lower corneal hysteresis is associated with more rapid glaucomatous visual field progression. J Glaucoma 2012;21:209-13
  7. Anand A, De Moraes CG, Teng CC, Tello C, Liebmann JM, Ritch R. Corneal hysteresis and visual field asymmetry in open angle glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010;51:6514-8
  8. Crowston JG, Hopley CR, Healey PR, Lee A, Mitchell P; Blue Mountains Eye Study. The effect of optic disc diameter on vertical cup to disc ratio percentiles in a population based cohort: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Br J Ophthalmol 2004;88:766- 70
  9. Garway-Heath DF, Ruben ST, Viswanathan A, Hitchings RA. Vertical cup/disc ratio in relation to optic disc size: its value in the assessment of the glaucoma suspect. Br J Ophthalmol 1998;82:1118-24
  10. Jonas JB, Gusek GC, Naumann GO. Optic disc, cup and neuroretinal rim size, configuration and correlations in normal eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1988;29:1151-8
  11. Onmez FE, Satana B, Altan C, Basarir B, Demirok A. A comparison of optic nerve head topographic measurements by Stratus OCT in patients with macrodiscs and normal-sized healthy discs. J Glaucoma 2014;23:e152-6
  12. Leung CK, Mohamed S, Leung KS, Cheung CY, Chan SL, Cheng DK, et al. Retinal nerve fiber layer measurements in myopia: An optical coherence tomography study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006;47:5171-6
  13. Littmann H. Determination of the real size of an object on the fundus of the living eye. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 1982;180:286-9
  14. Bennett AG, Rudnicka AR, Edgar DF. Improvements on Littmann's method of determining the size o