SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Oftalmoloji Dergisi / 2008 / Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of vertical C/D ratio obtained by assistant of ophthalmology with results of optical cohorence tomography

Asistan göz hekimlerinin dikey C/D oranı ölçümleri ile optik kohorens tomografi sonuçlarının karşılaştırılması

Selahattin BALSAK
Zeki AKKUŞ
Yıldırım Beyazıt ŞAKALAR
Selahattin Uğur KEKLİKÇİ
Şeymus ARI
Kaan ÜNLÜ
İhsan ÇAÇA
Pages
28–32
Publication Date
2022-11-05
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)

The mean vertical C/D ratio that measured by each assistant was statistically lower than obtained by optical cohorence tomography(p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:PURPOSE: To compare vertical C/D ratio that measured with ophthalmoscopic examination of second, third and fourth year assistant of ophthalmology with vertical C/D ratio obtained by optical cohorence tomography.
📊
Key Findings & Data:MATERIALS-METHODS: One hundred and ten eyes of 72 glaucoma patients which are followed in glaucoma unit were included to study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The mean vertical C/D ratio that measured by each assistant was statistically lower than obtained by optical cohorence tomography(p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare vertical C/D ratio that measured with ophthalmoscopic examination of second, third and fourth year assistant of ophthalmology with vertical C/D ratio obtained by optical cohorence tomography. MATERIALS-METHODS: One hundred and ten eyes of 72 glaucoma patients which are followed in glaucoma unit were included to study. Each assistant examined vertical C/D ratio by Goldman tree mirror lens and results were recorded independently from results of the other assistants. The measurements of vertical C/D ratio were obtained by optic nerve head analyses of Stratus Optical Cohorence Tomography after pupillary dilatation and vertical C/D ratio were enlisted. All measurements of vertical C/D ratio were compared each other. RESULTS: Thirty patients were male and 42 patients were female, mean age was 51.43±19.2. Mean vertical C/D ratio measured by second year asisstant was 0.556±0.246, mean vertical C/D ratio measured by third year assistant was 0.534±0.251, mean vertical C/D ratio measured by fourth year assistant was 0.529±0.250. Mean vertical C/D ratio obtained by optical cohorence tomography was 0.651±0.223. There was no statistically signicant differences among vertical C/D ratio measured by assistants(p>0.05). The mean vertical C/D ratio that measured by each assistant was statistically lower than obtained by optical cohorence tomography(p

Özet

AMAÇ: 2., 3. ve 4. yıl asistan göz hekimlerinin oftalmoskopik muayene ile belirledikleri dikey C/D oranlarını, kendi aralarında ve optik kohorens tomografi(OKT) dikey C/D oranı ölçümleri ile karşılaştırmak. YÖNTEM-GEREÇ: Glokom biriminde takip edilen 72 olgunun 110 gözü çalışmaya dahil edildi. Her bir asistan göz hekimi tarafından Goldman 3 aynalı lensi kullanılarak oftalmoskopik muayene ile dikey C/D oranları belirlendi ve diğer göz hekimlerinden bağımsız olarak kaydedildi. Pupil genişletilmesi sonrası Stratus Optik Kohorens Tomografi cihazı optik sinir başı analizi ile dikey C/D oranı ölçümleri alınarak kaydedildi. Elde edilen tüm dikey C/D oranı sonuçları birbirleri arasında karşılaştırıldı. BULGULAR: Çalışmaya alınan olguların 30’u erkek 42’si kadın olup yaş ortalaması 51.43±19.32 idi. 2. yıl asistan göz hekiminin belirlediği dikey C/D oranı ortalama 0.556±0.246, 3.yıl asistan göz hekiminin belirlediği dikey C/D oranı ortalama 0.534±0.251, 4. yıl asistan göz hekimi tarafından belirlenen dikey C/D oranı ortalama 0.529±0.250 olarak bulundu. Optik kohorens tomografi ile alınan dikey C/D oranı ölçümleri ise ortalama 0.651±0.223’tü. Yapılan istatistiksel çalışma sonucunda göz hekimlerinin belirledikleri C/D oranları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunmadı(p>0.05). Her bir hekim tarafından belirlenen C/D oranı ortalamalarının OKT’de ölçülen C/D oranlarından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı derecede daha düşük olduğu saptandı(p

🔖

Cite This Article

BALSAK, S., AKKUŞ, Z., ŞAKALAR, Y. B., KEKLİKÇİ, S. U., ARI, Ş., ÜNLÜ, K., ÇAÇA, İ. (2022). Comparison of vertical C/D ratio obtained by assistant of ophthalmology with results of optical cohorence tomography. Türk Oftalmoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 1, 28–32. https://ajindex.com/articles/638563

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Anderson DR. What happens to the optic disc and retina in glaucoma? Ophthalmology 1983;90:766-70
  2. Jonas JB, Budde WM, Panda-Jonas S. Ophthalmoscopic evaluation of the optic nerve head. Surv Ophthalmol 1999;43:293-320
  3. Varma R, Steinmann WC, Scott IU. Expert agreement in evaluating the optic disc for glaucoma. Ophthalmology 1992;99: 215-21
  4. Hatch WV, Trope GE, Buys YM, Maçken P, Etchells EE, Flanagan JG. Agreement in assessing glaucomatous discs in a clinical teaching setting with stereoscopic disc pho tographs, planimetry, and laser scanning tomography. J Glaucoma 1999;8: 99-104
  5. Abrams LS, Scott IU, Spaeth GL, Quigley HA, Varma R. Agreement among optometrists, ophthalmologists, and re sidents in evaluating the optic disc for glaucoma. Oph thalmology 1994; 101:1662-7
  6. Augsburger A, Alexander KL. Four clinical techniques in cup/disc ratio estimation. J Am Optom Assoc 1977;48:645-8
  7. Greaney MJ, Hoffman DC, Garway-Heath DF, Nakla M, Coleman AL, Caprioli J. Comparison of optic nerve ima ging methods to distinguish normal eyes from those with glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43: 140-5
  8. Huang D, Swanson EA, Lin CP, Schuman JS, Stinson WG, Chang W, Hee MR, Flotte T, Gregory K, Puliafito CA, Fujimoto JG. (1991) Optical coherence tomography. Science 1991;254:1178-81
  9. Jonas JB, Budde WM. Diagnosis and pathogenesis of gla ucomatous optic neuropathy: morphological aspects. Prog Retin Eye Res 2000; 19:1-40
  10. Lichter PR. Variability of expert observers in evaluating the optic disc. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 1977;74:532-72
  11. Good GW, Quinn TG. Component evaluation of cup/disk ratio estimation. J Am Optom Assoc 1984;55:889-93
  12. Haslett RS, Batterbury M, Cuypers M, Cooper RL. Inter observer agreement in clinical optic disc measurement using a modified 60 D lens. Eye 1997; 11:692-7
  13. Hanson S, Krishnan SK, Phillips J. Observer experience and Cup:Disc ratio assessment. Optom Vis Sci 2001 Oct;78(10):701-5
  14. Arnalich-Montiel F, Munoz-Negrete FJ, Rebolleda G, Sa les-Sanz M, Cabarga C. Cup-to-disc ratio: agreement bet ween slit-lamp indirect ophthalmoscopic estimation and stratus optical coherence tomography measurement. Eye 2007 Aug;21(8):1041-9
  15. Arthur SN, Aldridge AJ, De Leon-Ortega J, McGwin G, Xie A, Girkin CA. Agreement in assessing cup-to-disc ra tio measurement among stereoscopic optic nerve head photographs, HRTII, and Stratus OCT. J Glaucoma 2006 Jun; 15(3): 183-9.