August 2005
Volume 46, Issue 8
Free
Glaucoma  |   August 2005
Laser Scanning Tomography of the Optic Nerve Head in a Normal Elderly Population: The Bridlington Eye Assessment Project
Author Affiliations
  • Stephen A. Vernon
    From the Department of Ophthalmology, Queen’s Medical Centre, University Hospital, Nottingham, United Kingdom; and
  • Matthew J. Hawker
    From the Department of Ophthalmology, Queen’s Medical Centre, University Hospital, Nottingham, United Kingdom; and
  • Gerard Ainsworth
    From the Department of Ophthalmology, Queen’s Medical Centre, University Hospital, Nottingham, United Kingdom; and
  • Jonathan G. Hillman
    The Medical Centre, Bridlington, United Kingdom.
  • Hamish K. MacNab
    The Medical Centre, Bridlington, United Kingdom.
  • Harminder S. Dua
    From the Department of Ophthalmology, Queen’s Medical Centre, University Hospital, Nottingham, United Kingdom; and
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science August 2005, Vol.46, 2823-2828. doi:10.1167/iovs.05-0087
  • Views
  • PDF
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Stephen A. Vernon, Matthew J. Hawker, Gerard Ainsworth, Jonathan G. Hillman, Hamish K. MacNab, Harminder S. Dua; Laser Scanning Tomography of the Optic Nerve Head in a Normal Elderly Population: The Bridlington Eye Assessment Project. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005;46(8):2823-2828. doi: 10.1167/iovs.05-0087.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

purpose. To assess optic nerve head topographic parameters using the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph (HRT) II (Heidelberg Engineering GmbH, Dossenheim, Germany) in a normal elderly population.

methods. Optic nerve head analysis of 918 eyes of 459 normal elderly patients was performed. All patients were consecutive in a cohort screened for eye disease. Normal subjects were defined with a normal visual field on automated suprathreshold screening, intraocular pressure less than 22 mmHg, and minimum corrected visual acuity of 6/12. All optic discs were contoured by two investigators and the mean parameters analyzed. The effects of age, sex, and disc size were assessed.

results. Subjects’ (262 women and 197 men) mean age was 72.6 ± 5.1 (SD) years (range, 65.5–89.3). Mean ± SD global disc area, cup/disc area ratio, and neuroretinal rim area were 1.98 ± 0.36 mm2, 0.22 ± 0.14, and 1.52 ± 0.31 mm2, respectively. Disc area did not differ significantly based on eye side or sex. The women were found to have a significantly larger rim volume, mean retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness, and cross-sectional area than the men and tended to have smaller cup areas/volumes and cup/disc area ratios. Most tomography parameters were found to be significantly influenced by disc size.

conclusions. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first large study of optic nerve head parameters in the elderly normal population using the HRT II. This age range is particularly relevant to glaucoma detection and pertinent to discriminant analyses separating normal subjects from glaucoma in screening for the disease. Given the systematic differences between the parameters in men and women, reference ranges should be quoted by sex.

The appearance of the normal optic nerve head (ONH) can vary widely. This variability can cause expert observers of the optic disc to disagree in discriminating between normal and glaucomatous eyes. 1 2 The introduction of objective imaging of the disc promises to improve evaluation of optic nerve parameters by removing subjectivity. The Heidelberg Retina Tomograph II (HRT II; Heidelberg Engineering GmbH, Dossenheim, Germany) is a semiautomated, confocal scanning laser system that provides reliable and reproducible three-dimensional imaging data of the ONH. 3 If HRT II were to offer an acceptable screening modality for glaucoma, it would have to demonstrate good discrimination between normal and diseased eyes, with high sensitivity and specificity. Previous studies have sought to define the normal range of HRT II ONH parameters and thus to define disease as “non-normal.” Using this approach, the Moorfields regression analysis has generated specificities of 94% to 96%, with lower sensitivities of 74% to 84%. 4 5 An alternative statistical technique has been used in which individual topographic measures are used as weighted predictor variables to generate a linear discriminant function (LDF) separating persons with glaucoma and normal subjects. 6 7 8 However, this has failed to improve discrimination sufficiently for mass screening, which in a population setting requires sensitivity and specificity to be very high to avoid a significant number of false positives and false negatives. Because these techniques rely on the integrity of the normal range data, it is significant that previous larger-scale normal patient samples have not been population based, with a mean age well below the age profile of patients with glaucoma, 5 9 10 11 12 13 most of whom are aged more than 60 years. 14 We present data obtained from patients screened for the BEAP. The project systematically invited residents over the age of 65 years in the town of Bridlington, United Kingdom, to attend a full screening examination for eye disease. HRT II imaging was performed as part of the examination. The purpose of this study was to generate reference range data for the HRT II ONH parameters on a population-based sample of normal elderly patients. 
Methods
Subjects: The Bridlington Eye Assessment Project
The methodology of the Bridlington Eye Assessment Project has not been described previously and is therefore detailed herein. As just stated, the project systematically invited all the town of Bridlington’s elderly population (over the age of 65 years) for a comprehensive screening eye examination by one of four trained optometrists. Patients aged 65 or older on May 11, 2002, and registered with a general practitioner in Bridlington were eligible to attend the examination. Patients known to be registered as blind or partially sighted, bed-bound or demented, or moving into or out of the area during the study were excluded. The Project saw it’s first patient on May 11, 2002, and had seen 1246 patients when this study commenced in January 2004. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, and a local research ethics committee approved all methodology. All methods adhered to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki for research in human subjects. 
A relevant standardized medical history was obtained (diabetes, stroke, hypertension) together with the patient’s drug history. Distance and reading spectacle requirements were noted in addition to any history of amblyopia, ocular surgery, or any other ocular disease. Specifically, any history of glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, or macular degeneration was noted. Family history of glaucoma was determined, together with the patient’s driving status and social circumstances. Uncorrected, corrected, and pinhole logMAR (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution) visual acuity was then obtained (Bailey-Lovie no. 4 Chart; National Vision Research Institute of Australia, Carlton, Victoria, Australia). The patient was then examined by one of four optometrists trained specifically for the project. Standardized slit lamp examination of the anterior segment and Goldmann applanation tonometry were performed. After instillation of dilation drops, automated visual field analysis was performed with a perimeter (Henson Pro 5000) with software version 3.1.4 (Tinsley Instruments, Croydon, UK). A single-stimulus, suprathreshold, central 26-point test was used. This was automatically extended to a 68-point test if a defect was detected. The patient’s lens, optic disc, macula, and peripheral retina were then specifically examined by slit lamp biomicroscopy with 90-D lens. Decisions on appropriate further management of the patient were made before high-resolution digital fundus photographs (TRC NW6S; Topcon, Tokyo, Japan) and HRT II images (HRT II software ver. 1.4.1.0; Heidelberg Engineering GmbH) were obtained. 
Confocal Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscope Assessment
In this study, data from the first 1246 patients were examined. Of those, 576 patients were defined as normal for the purposes of this study with an intraocular pressure less than 22 mm Hg in both eyes, a normal visual field determined by suprathreshold automated examination, and corrected logMAR acuity of at least 0.3 (Snellen equivalent 6/12). Patients with a history of glaucoma or use of ocular pressure-lowering treatment were excluded. Of the 576 normal patients, a further 16 were excluded because of absent or unacceptable disc images. A further 10 patients were excluded because splinter hemorrhages were observed clinically on one or both of their optic discs. Patients were purposely not excluded on the basis of an optic disc clinically suspected of glaucoma. Patients were imaged with HRT II, with the scanner’s focus being adjusted according to the patient’s refraction and to obtain the best image. The optic disc contour line was drawn by two investigators (GA, MJH) to mark the edge of the optic disc. Contour lines were placed on separate database copies so that each investigator could not see the contour line drawn by the other. HRT II then calculated disc area (square millimeters) and 12 further stereometric parameters. The parameters were cup area (square millimeters), rim area (square millimeters), cup-to-disc area ratio, rim-to-disc area ratio, cup volume (cubic millimeters), rim volume (cubic millimeters), mean cup depth (millimeters), maximum cup depth (millimeters), height variation contour (millimeters), cup shape measure, mean retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness (millimeters), and RNFL cross-sectional area (square millimeters). Each of these parameters was expressed for the global disc and for six individual disc sectors (temporal, temporal superior, temporal inferior, nasal, nasal superior, and nasal inferior). The average variability (SD) of the three HRT images comprising the mean topographic image was 34 μm. Because of the large range of average variability (0–258 μm) discs with the largest 10% of average variability were excluded on a patient-wise (eye pair) basis (a further 91 patient exclusions). The maximum average variability was then 68 μm, with a mean ± SD of 26.8 ± 13.3 μm. This was comparable to previous investigations and gave acceptable data quality for the purposes of generating a reference range. 5  
Analysis
HRT II parameters for this study were derived as a the mean of parameters generated by the two individual investigators. Contour line placement is based on subjective judgment and inevitably generates intrinsic variability. Using the mean parameter value attempts to reduce this variability, improving the applicability of the results beyond the individual investigator. Investigator agreement and the effects of using a digital photographic image to aid contour placement are to be the subject of a further communication. 
ONH HRT II parameters were analyzed on computer (SPSS for Windows, ver. 12.0, Statistical Package for Social Sciences; SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL). Parameter indices were assessed visually for normality by using histograms and objectively with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. As expected, all parameters produced a bell-shaped distribution, apart from those related to the cup area and volume (which has a minimum value of zero and is not therefore normally distributed). Nearly all parameters with a bell-shaped distribution showed significant departure from normality with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. For this reason, and because parameter comparisons could not be truly classified as paired or independent, the Mann-Whitney test was used to assess the significance of differences in parameters between right and left eyes and between the men and women. Two-tailed tests were used throughout. With a large dataset that was not found to be normally distributed, we state the 95th and 99th percentile limits of normality (reference range) for our data. 
Linear regression analysis was used to determine which variables were related to disc area. In no case was R 2 greater than 0.37. Thus, with relatively small dependent effects, and non-normally distributed data, we quote Spearman’s rank correlation to assess the relative effects of disc area on disc parameters. The effect of age on global disc parameters was assessed with the Kruskal-Wallis test by dividing the sample into quartiles based on age. Statistical significance for this study was set at the 5% level. However, for multiple comparisons among the 12 HRT parameters, a Bonferroni correction was applied with resultant significance at P < 0.004. 
Results
Demographics
A total of 918 eyes of 459 patients were included in the study. All patients were white and of European extraction. The mean age of the subjects (262 women and 197 men) was 72.6 ± 5.1 (SD) years (range, 65.5–89.3). The mean age of the men and women was not significantly different (72.9 and 72.4 years, respectively; P = 0.41). Of those patients who were excluded 57.0% were women. The mean age of excluded patients was significantly higher than that of those who were included (75.0 vs. 72.6 years; P < 0.0001). 
ONH Parameters
The mean disc area was 1.98 ± 0.36 mm2 (SD). The mean, SD, median, and 2.5th/97.5th and 0.5th/99.5th percentiles for all global parameters are presented in Table 1 . Global disc area showed a bell-shaped distribution with a degree of positive skew. As expected, global cup area, and all cup-related variables did not show bell-shaped distributions (Fig. 1)
Table 2shows the global disc parameters for each eye in the 459 patients. Global height variation contour and cup shape measure were significantly different between the two eyes, although the differences in mean values were very small. When the effects of laterality were examined for each sex separately, differences approaching significance were observed in cup shape measure in the men only (mean, −0.166 and −0.182 in right and left eyes, respectively; P = 0.009), and height variation contour in the women only (mean, 0.372 and 0.397 in right and left eyes, respectively; P = 0.008). No other significant differences contrary to those found in the global right/left and male/female analyses were observed. 
Sex-related differences in some ONH parameters were observed. Rim volume, mean RNFL thickness, and RNFL cross-sectional area were significantly greater in the women than in the men (P < 0.001; Table 3 ). Correspondingly, cup area and volume, and cup/disc area ratio all tended to be smaller in the women than in the men, though the differences were not statistically significant after the application of the Bonferroni correction. Given the consistent nature of the differences between the men and the women, we quote the 5% and 1% reference ranges separately for these groups. There were clinically relevant differences in these normal range references between the sexes in the cup- and rim-related parameters. 
Cup area was found to have the strongest association with global disc area (Table 4) . All other parameters had small to moderate degrees of association apart from height variation contour. When patients were divided into quartiles based on age, no significant effects of age were found for any ONH parameter, although global rim/disc area ratio (Fig. 2)and mean RNFL thickness tended to decrease with increasing age, with a concurrent increase in cup area. 
Discussion
Largely because of the overlap in ONH parameter ranges between normal and glaucomatous eyes, some previous studies have shown that HRT II has poor sensitivity as a screening modality for glaucoma, and therefore those investigators concluded that HRT II cannot currently be recommended for screening. 15 16 In contrast, other researchers have shown that HRT classifications, techniques, and stereophotograph assessment can detect optic disc topography abnormalities in glaucoma-suspect eyes before the development of standard achromatic perimetry abnormalities. These data support strongly the importance of optic disc examination for early glaucoma diagnosis. 17 We present the normal range data for ONH parameters measured by HRT II based on a large, population-based sample of elderly patients. With a mean age of 72.6 years, our sample is more representative of the glaucoma population than previous studies (mean age range, 36–56 years 9 10 12 13 18 ), and more pertinent to discriminant analyses attempting to separate normal subjects from those with glaucoma. With this pragmatic purpose in mind, we defined “normal” based on visual field, intraocular pressure, and visual acuity, rather than on optic disc appearance. 
We demonstrated consistent differences in ONH parameters between the sexes. In our study, the women had significantly greater rim volume, mean RNFL thickness, and cross-sectional area and tended to have a smaller cup area and volume and cup/disc area ratio. There was no significant difference in mean age between the men and the women, to account for the observed differences. The sex-related differences in cup-related parameters did not reach statistical significance, although nonparametric tests with a Bonferroni correction return a conservative result (increasing the risk of type II errors). 19 We note that analyses performed using the unpaired Student’s t-test (equality of variances not assumed) returned significant differences between the sexes for all cup- and rim-related variables at the 0.5% level. Hermann et al. 9 found that rim volume was significantly greater in the right eye in women than in men, though they found no other significant differences between the sexes. Our data did not reproduce this finding. Other studies have found no significant difference in parameters based on sex. 20 21 22 In contrast to our data, using digitized photographic optic disc images, Rudnicka et al. 23 found women to have smaller rim areas and larger cup areas (differences of marginal statistical significance). Using stereoscopic optic disc images, Ramrattan et al. 24 found men to have significantly larger disc area and rim area. These variations are not due to racial factors, as nearly all subjects in these studies were white. The mean age of subjects in many of these studies was considerably lower than in our sample. Given that elderly men have twice the prevalence of open-angle glaucoma than do women, 14 our findings of smaller rim volumes and tendency to larger cup-related measurements in the men than in the women may reflect the progression of a greater proportion of men toward glaucoma. Having found significant sex-related differences, for the purposes of using our data to distinguish normal and glaucoma, we state sex-specific normal ranges for HRT II ONH parameters. 
Our study found significant differences between right and left eyes in height variation contour and cup shape measure. When we examined the effects of laterality for each sex, cup shape measure differed significantly only in the men, and height variation contour differed significantly only in the women. These differences, however, were small and of little clinical significance. A recent study found no systematic differences based on laterality, 10 previous studies having found conflicting differences in mean RNFL thickness and cross-sectional area that were clinically minimal. 9 12 To date, no consistent differences in ONH parameters based on laterality have been demonstrated. 
Although rim and nerve-fiber–related measurements tended to decrease with age, we did not find a significant effect of age on ONH parameters in our study. However, with a minimum age of 65 years, it is likely that our sample lacks power to detect a significant effect without younger patients for comparison. Using image analysis of stereoscopic disc photographs, another population-based study with a minimum age of 55 also detected no age effect on ONH parameters. 24 Studies with a larger age range have detected significant enlargement of cup measurements, with reduction in rim/nerve fiber layer measurements with increasing age. 9 10 11 In common with previous studies, we have also shown many ONH parameters to be dependent on disc size. 5 10 11 We found height variation contour to be the only parameter independent of disc area. Cup shape measure, which Durukan et al. 10 found to be independent of disc area, had a significant association with disc area in our study. Although cup shape measure has shown promise in detecting glaucoma and its progression, 25 26 any variability due to disc area widens the confidence limits of normality. 
Heidelberg Engineering recommends that images of low quality (SD of the mean topographic image greater than 50 μm) should not be used in a follow-up (change) analysis. Even by excluding 10% of patients with the greatest SD, the maximum SD in our sample was 68 μm. Although this should be considered a limitation of our study, it is not unexpected in our sample with a minimum age of 65 years. Previous studies have found that image variability increases with age 27 and with the presence of cataract, 28 though the effect of cataract was much reduced by acquiring images through a dilated pupil. If we were to exclude patients with SDs over 50 μm, we would preferentially exclude more elderly patients, and limit one of the main novelties of our study as an analysis of HRT II imaging in the elderly. We have included patients on an eye-pair basis. Thus, we would lose a significant number of patients (120 eyes in 60 patients further excluded) if we excluded them because even one eye had an SD over 50 μm. We therefore excluded patients with the greatest 10% of image SD, to remove outlying patients with SDs not representative of the group as a whole. When we reanalyzed the sample, with patients with an SD over 50 μm excluded, all global parameter means and SDs remained essentially unchanged, with no significant differences caused by the new exclusion criterion. We anticipate that, in a cross-sectional study, the effect of mean topographic image SD is less critical than in longitudinal studies, due to the principal of regression to the mean. In our study only one mean topographic image was acquired per eye. The focusing dial of the machine was adjusted according to the patients’ refraction and to obtain the clearest image. Much of the acquisition process of the HRT II is automated. If the machine stated that astigmatism was significantly impairing the image, then the image was obtained through the patients’ spectacles. If the image acquired was visually unacceptable, then the process was repeated to obtain an acceptable image, although this was not possible in a few patients. The causes of poor image quality are important, especially in this age group, for the reasons we have outlined. It is possible that the use of drops before the test and applanation tonometry reduced image quality. However, tonometry was performed before dilation, and HRT II image acquisition was not performed until at least 20 minutes after instillation of drops. The effects are therefore likely to have been minimal. The relationship between image SD and patient variables in our sample is to be the subject of a further communication. 
Of the 1246 patients examined by BEAP, our definitions of normality have excluded most. This limitation of our study arises mainly from the lack of best-corrected visual acuity obtained with a contemporary refraction and a large number of false-positive suprathreshold visual field tests. In this elderly age group, false-positive field results are common and represent a major hindrance to the use of visual field tests in screening for glaucoma. In our study, individual reading glasses were used when available. Otherwise, based on focimetry of the patient’s spectacles, the optometrist recommended a spherical reading “add” (wide-lens spectacles) to be worn while the patient performed the test. All patients had received mydriatics before performing the visual field test. Although the effect of mydriasis is not expected to be uniform, in this elderly age group, dilation reduces the effect of senile miosis on the visual field tests—especially relevant in the presence of cataract. With the minimum age of 65 years in our sample conferring significant presbyopia, we would not anticipate significant variability effect due to reduced accommodation because of mydriasis. Overall, the visual field test conditions are likely to have produced some false-positive, abnormal findings, resulting in exclusion from the study. However, even with many exclusions of potentially “normal” patients, our data provide a reference range of normality for HRT II parameters drawn from a population-based sample with an age range relevant to glaucoma. Whether this new reference range, including both eyes of normal subjects, can improve discrimination between normal and glaucomatous eyes is to be the subject of a further communication. 
 
Table 1.
 
HRT II Measurements of the Optic Nerve Head of 459 Normal Elderly Patients
Table 1.
 
HRT II Measurements of the Optic Nerve Head of 459 Normal Elderly Patients
Global Parameter Mean (SD) Median Range 2.5/97.5 Percentile 0.5/99.5 Percentile
Disc area (mm2) 1.98 (0.36) 1.93 1.20–3.73 1.40/2.81 1.28/3.49
Cup area (mm2) 0.45 (0.35) 0.40 0.00–2.61 1.06* 1.79, †
Rim area (mm2) 1.52 (0.31) 1.49 0.32–3.34 1.03/2.24 0.58/2.65
Cup-to-disc area ratio 0.22 (0.14) 0.21 0.00–0.89 0.45* 0.62, †
Cup volume (mm3) 0.09 (0.11) 0.06 0.00–0.82 0.30* 0.52, †
Rim volume (mm3) 0.40 (0.15) 0.38 0.02–1.17 0.17/0.77 0.07/1.05
Mean cup depth (mm) 0.19 (0.08) 0.18 0.01–0.50 0.04/0.38 0.02/0.45
Maximum cup depth (mm) 0.52 (0.21) 0.51 0.02–1.36 0.12/0.97 0.06/1.19
Height variation contour (mm) 0.37 (0.10) 0.37 0.14–0.92 0.21/0.59 0.15/0.72
Cup shape measure −0.18 (0.06) −0.18 −0.38–0.05 −0.30/−0.06 −0.36/−0.02
Mean RNFL thickness (mm) 0.23 (0.07) 0.23 −0.08–0.48 0.09/0.35 0.04/0.41
RNFL cross-sectional area (mm2) 1.11 (0.33) 1.12 −0.43–2.54 0.43/1.76 −0.17/2.03
Figure 1.
 
Global disc area and global cup area distribution in 918 eyes of 459 normal elderly patients.
Figure 1.
 
Global disc area and global cup area distribution in 918 eyes of 459 normal elderly patients.
Table 2.
 
HRT II Global Optic Disc Parameters in 459 Healthy Elderly Patients’ Eyes
Table 2.
 
HRT II Global Optic Disc Parameters in 459 Healthy Elderly Patients’ Eyes
Parameter Right Eye Left Eyes P
Mean (SD) 2.5/97.5 Percentile Mean 2.5/97.5 Percentile
Disc area (mm2) 1.98 (0.35) 1.42/2.82 1.97 (0.36) 1.38/2.78 0.60
Cup area (mm2) 0.46 (0.34) 1.06* 0.44 (0.36) 1.05* 0.12
Rim area (mm2) 1.52 (0.31) 1.01/2.26 1.53 (0.31) 1.06/2.22 0.61
Cup-to-disc area ratio 0.22 (0.14) 0.46* 0.21 (0.14) 0.45* 0.12
Cup volume (mm3) 0.09 (0.10) 0.29* 0.09 (0.11) 0.32* 0.28
Rim volume (mm3) 0.39 (0.15) 0.15/0.77 0.41 (0.15) 0.19/0.81 0.04
Mean cup depth (mm) 0.19 (0.08) 0.04/0.36 0.19 (0.09) 0.04/0.38 0.46
Maximum cup depth (mm) 0.51 (0.21) 0.11/0.93 0.53 (0.22) 0.13/0.99 0.37
Height variation contour (mm) 0.36 (0.09) 0.20/0.55 0.39 (0.10) 0.21/0.62 0.001
Cup shape measure −0.17 (0.06) −0.30/−0.06 −0.18 (0.06) −0.31/−0.06 0.004
Mean RNFL thickness (mm) 0.22 (0.07) 0.08/0.35 0.23 (0.07) 0.10/0.36 0.23
RNFL cross-sectional area (mm2) 1.10 (0.33) 0.41/1.76 1.13 (0.34) 0.47/1.77 0.44
Table 3.
 
Sex-Related Differences in Optic Nerve Head Topography of a Normal Elderly Population
Table 3.
 
Sex-Related Differences in Optic Nerve Head Topography of a Normal Elderly Population
Parameter Men* (n = 197) 2.5/97.5 Percentile 0.5/99.5 Percentile Women* (n = 262) 2.5/97.5 Percentile 0.5/99.5 Percentile P
Disc area (mm2) 2.00 (0.37) 1.40/2.82 1.30/3.56 1.96 (0.34) 1.40/2.77 1.26/3.49 0.10
Cup area (mm2) 0.49 (0.38) 1.16, † 1.93, ‡ 0.42 (0.32) 0.98, † 1.52, ‡ 0.02
Rim area (mm2) 1.51 (0.32) 0.99/2.23 0.39/2.57 1.53 (0.30) 1.03/2.24 0.89/2.90 0.12
Cup-to-disc area ratio 0.23 (0.15) 0.47, † 0.78, ‡ 0.21 (0.13) 0.43, † 0.61, ‡ 0.02
Cup volume (mm3) 0.10 (0.12) 0.32, † 0.59, ‡ 0.08 (0.10) 0.27, † 0.47, ‡ 0.02
Rim volume (mm3) 0.38 (0.14) 0.15/0.72 0.02/0.92 0.41 (0.16) 0.17/0.84 0.11/1.05 <0.001
Mean cup depth (mm) 0.19 (0.09) 0.05/0.40 0.01/0.47 0.18 (0.08) 0.04/0.36 0.02/0.45 0.16
Maximum cup depth (mm) 0.53 (0.21) 0.14/0.98 0.04/1.28 0.51 (0.22) 0.11/0.96 0.07/1.16 0.20
Height variation contour (mm) 0.36 (0.09) 0.20/0.55 0.14/0.67 0.38 (0.10) 0.21/0.61 0.16/0.78 0.002
Cup shape measure −0.17 (0.06) −0.30/−0.06 −0.37/−0.02 −0.18 (0.06) −0.30/−0.06 −0.34/−0.01 0.13
Mean RNFL thickness (mm) 0.21 (0.06) 0.08/0.33 −0.05/0.40 0.23 (0.07) 0.09/0.37 0.03/0.44 <0.001
RNFL cross-sectional area (mm2) 1.06 (0.32) 0.42/1.60 −0.29/2.01 1.15 (0.34) 0.43/1.83 0.13/2.11 <0.001
Table 4.
 
Spearman’s Rank Correlation between Optic Nerve Head Topographic Parameters and Global Disc Area
Table 4.
 
Spearman’s Rank Correlation between Optic Nerve Head Topographic Parameters and Global Disc Area
Parameter r s P
Cup area (mm2) 0.54 0.000
Rim area (mm2) 0.47 0.000
Cup volume (mm3) 0.45 0.000
Cup-to-disc area ratio 0.38 0.000
Mean cup depth (mm) 0.34 0.000
Cup shape measure 0.29 0.000
Maximum cup depth (mm) 0.25 0.000
Mean RNFL thickness (mm) −0.15 0.000
RNFL cross-sectional area (mm2) 0.14 0.000
Rim volume (mm3) 0.12 0.000
Height variation contour (mm) −0.03 0.31
Figure 2.
 
Changes in global rim/disc area ratio between the four age quartile groups of 918 eyes of 459 normal elderly patients.
Figure 2.
 
Changes in global rim/disc area ratio between the four age quartile groups of 918 eyes of 459 normal elderly patients.
The authors thank Sheila MacNab (Project Manager), and Stephen Brown, Janet Button, Graham Langton, and Mark Kunz (Optometrists) for their work with the Project; John Bapty, Nigel Connell, Peter Jay, and Gillian Poole for their work as the charity trustees of the Bridlington Eye Assessment Project; and David P. Crabb (Lecturer in Statistics, School of Science, The Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK) for assistance with statistical analyses. 
VarmaR, SteinmannWC, ScottIU. Expert agreement in evaluating the optic disc for glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 1992;99:215–221. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Azuara-BlancoA, KatzLJ, SpaethGL, et al. Clinical agreement among glaucoma experts in the detection of glaucomatous changes of the optic disk using simultaneous stereoscopic photographs. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;136:949–950. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
RohrschneiderK, BurkRO, KruseFE, VolckerHE. Reproducibility of the optic nerve head topography with a new laser tomographic scanning device. Ophthalmology. 1994;101:1044–1049. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
MigliorS, GuareschiM, AlbeE, et al. Detection of glaucomatous visual field changes using the Moorfields regression analysis of the Heidelberg retina tomograph. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;136:26–33. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
WollsteinG, Garway-HeathDF, HitchingsRA. Identification of early glaucoma cases with the scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Ophthalmology. 1998;105:1557–1563. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
MikelbergF, ParfittC, SwindaleN, et al. Ability of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph to detect early glaucomatous visual field loss. J Glaucoma. 1995;4:242–247. [PubMed]
IesterM, MikelbergFS, DranceSM. The effect of optic disc size on diagnostic precision with the Heidelberg retina tomograph. Ophthalmology. 1997;104:545–548. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
BathijaR, ZangwillL, BerryCC, et al. Detection of early glaucomatous structural damage with confocal scanning laser tomography. J Glaucoma. 1998;7:121–127. [PubMed]
HermannMM, TheofylaktopoulosI, BangardN, et al. Optic nerve head morphometry in healthy adults using confocal laser scanning tomography. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004;88:761–765. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
DurukanAH, YucelI, AkarY, BayraktarMZ. Assessment of optic nerve head topographic parameters with a confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2004;32:259–264. [CrossRef]
NakamuraH, MaedaT, SuzukiY, InoueY. Scanning laser tomography to evaluate optic discs of normal eyes. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 1999;43:410–414. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
GherghelD, OrgulS, PrunteC, et al. Interocular differences in optic disc topographic parameters in normal subjects. Curr Eye Res. 2000;20:276–282. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bartz-SchmidtKU, SengersdorfA, EsserP, et al. The cumulative normalised rim/disc area ratio curve. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1996;234:227–231. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
WolfsRC, BorgerPH, RamrattanRS, et al. Changing views on open-angle glaucoma: definitions and prevalences: The Rotterdam Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:3309–3321. [PubMed]
FordBA, ArtesPH, McCormickTA, et al. Comparison of data analysis tools for detection of glaucoma with the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:1145–1150. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
MardinCY, HornFK, JonasJB, BuddeWM. Preperimetric glaucoma diagnosis by confocal scanning laser tomography of the optic disc. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999;83:299–304. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
BowdC, ZangwillLM, MedeirosFA, et al. Confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy classifiers and stereophotograph evaluation for prediction of visual field abnormalities in glaucoma-suspect eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:2255–2262. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
IesterM, BroadwayDC, MikelbergFS, DranceSM. A comparison of healthy, ocular hypertensive, and glaucomatous optic disc topographic parameters. J Glaucoma. 1997;6:363–370. [PubMed]
PernegerTV. What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. BMJ. 1998;316:1236–1238. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
SaruhanA, OrgulS, KocakI, et al. Descriptive information of topographic parameters computed at the optic nerve head with the Heidelberg retina tomograph. J Glaucoma. 1998;7:420–429. [PubMed]
BowdC, ZangwillLM, BlumenthalEZ, et al. Imaging of the optic disc and retinal nerve fiber layer: the effects of age, optic disc area, refractive error, and gender. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 2002;19:197–207. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
AgarwalHC, GulatiV, SihotaR. The normal optic nerve head on Heidelberg Retina Tomograph II. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2003;51:25–33. [PubMed]
RudnickaAR, FrostC, OwenCG, EdgarDF. Nonlinear behavior of certain optic nerve head parameters and their determinants in normal subjects. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:2358–2368. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
RamrattanRS, WolfsRC, JonasJB, et al. Determinants of optic disc characteristics in a general population: The Rotterdam Study. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:1588–1596. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
BurkRO, RendonR. Clinical detection of optic nerve damage: measuring changes in cup steepness with use of a new image alignment algorithm. Surv Ophthalmol. 2001;45(suppl 3)S297–S303.discussion S32–S34 [CrossRef] [PubMed]
IesterM, MikelbergFS, SwindaleNV, DranceSM. ROC analysis of Heidelberg Retina Tomograph optic disc shape measures in glaucoma. Can J Ophthalmol. 1997;32:382–388. [PubMed]
SihotaR, GulatiV, AgarwalHC, et al. Variables affecting test-retest variability of Heidelberg Retina Tomograph II stereometric parameters. J Glaucoma. 2002;11:321–328. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
ZangwillL, IrakI, BerryCC, et al. Effect of cataract and pupil size on image quality with confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115:983–990. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1.
 
Global disc area and global cup area distribution in 918 eyes of 459 normal elderly patients.
Figure 1.
 
Global disc area and global cup area distribution in 918 eyes of 459 normal elderly patients.
Figure 2.
 
Changes in global rim/disc area ratio between the four age quartile groups of 918 eyes of 459 normal elderly patients.
Figure 2.
 
Changes in global rim/disc area ratio between the four age quartile groups of 918 eyes of 459 normal elderly patients.
Table 1.
 
HRT II Measurements of the Optic Nerve Head of 459 Normal Elderly Patients
Table 1.
 
HRT II Measurements of the Optic Nerve Head of 459 Normal Elderly Patients
Global Parameter Mean (SD) Median Range 2.5/97.5 Percentile 0.5/99.5 Percentile
Disc area (mm2) 1.98 (0.36) 1.93 1.20–3.73 1.40/2.81 1.28/3.49
Cup area (mm2) 0.45 (0.35) 0.40 0.00–2.61 1.06* 1.79, †
Rim area (mm2) 1.52 (0.31) 1.49 0.32–3.34 1.03/2.24 0.58/2.65
Cup-to-disc area ratio 0.22 (0.14) 0.21 0.00–0.89 0.45* 0.62, †
Cup volume (mm3) 0.09 (0.11) 0.06 0.00–0.82 0.30* 0.52, †
Rim volume (mm3) 0.40 (0.15) 0.38 0.02–1.17 0.17/0.77 0.07/1.05
Mean cup depth (mm) 0.19 (0.08) 0.18 0.01–0.50 0.04/0.38 0.02/0.45
Maximum cup depth (mm) 0.52 (0.21) 0.51 0.02–1.36 0.12/0.97 0.06/1.19
Height variation contour (mm) 0.37 (0.10) 0.37 0.14–0.92 0.21/0.59 0.15/0.72
Cup shape measure −0.18 (0.06) −0.18 −0.38–0.05 −0.30/−0.06 −0.36/−0.02
Mean RNFL thickness (mm) 0.23 (0.07) 0.23 −0.08–0.48 0.09/0.35 0.04/0.41
RNFL cross-sectional area (mm2) 1.11 (0.33) 1.12 −0.43–2.54 0.43/1.76 −0.17/2.03
Table 2.
 
HRT II Global Optic Disc Parameters in 459 Healthy Elderly Patients’ Eyes
Table 2.
 
HRT II Global Optic Disc Parameters in 459 Healthy Elderly Patients’ Eyes
Parameter Right Eye Left Eyes P
Mean (SD) 2.5/97.5 Percentile Mean 2.5/97.5 Percentile
Disc area (mm2) 1.98 (0.35) 1.42/2.82 1.97 (0.36) 1.38/2.78 0.60
Cup area (mm2) 0.46 (0.34) 1.06* 0.44 (0.36) 1.05* 0.12
Rim area (mm2) 1.52 (0.31) 1.01/2.26 1.53 (0.31) 1.06/2.22 0.61
Cup-to-disc area ratio 0.22 (0.14) 0.46* 0.21 (0.14) 0.45* 0.12
Cup volume (mm3) 0.09 (0.10) 0.29* 0.09 (0.11) 0.32* 0.28
Rim volume (mm3) 0.39 (0.15) 0.15/0.77 0.41 (0.15) 0.19/0.81 0.04
Mean cup depth (mm) 0.19 (0.08) 0.04/0.36 0.19 (0.09) 0.04/0.38 0.46
Maximum cup depth (mm) 0.51 (0.21) 0.11/0.93 0.53 (0.22) 0.13/0.99 0.37
Height variation contour (mm) 0.36 (0.09) 0.20/0.55 0.39 (0.10) 0.21/0.62 0.001
Cup shape measure −0.17 (0.06) −0.30/−0.06 −0.18 (0.06) −0.31/−0.06 0.004
Mean RNFL thickness (mm) 0.22 (0.07) 0.08/0.35 0.23 (0.07) 0.10/0.36 0.23
RNFL cross-sectional area (mm2) 1.10 (0.33) 0.41/1.76 1.13 (0.34) 0.47/1.77 0.44
Table 3.
 
Sex-Related Differences in Optic Nerve Head Topography of a Normal Elderly Population
Table 3.
 
Sex-Related Differences in Optic Nerve Head Topography of a Normal Elderly Population
Parameter Men* (n = 197) 2.5/97.5 Percentile 0.5/99.5 Percentile Women* (n = 262) 2.5/97.5 Percentile 0.5/99.5 Percentile P
Disc area (mm2) 2.00 (0.37) 1.40/2.82 1.30/3.56 1.96 (0.34) 1.40/2.77 1.26/3.49 0.10
Cup area (mm2) 0.49 (0.38) 1.16, † 1.93, ‡ 0.42 (0.32) 0.98, † 1.52, ‡ 0.02
Rim area (mm2) 1.51 (0.32) 0.99/2.23 0.39/2.57 1.53 (0.30) 1.03/2.24 0.89/2.90 0.12
Cup-to-disc area ratio 0.23 (0.15) 0.47, † 0.78, ‡ 0.21 (0.13) 0.43, † 0.61, ‡ 0.02
Cup volume (mm3) 0.10 (0.12) 0.32, † 0.59, ‡ 0.08 (0.10) 0.27, † 0.47, ‡ 0.02
Rim volume (mm3) 0.38 (0.14) 0.15/0.72 0.02/0.92 0.41 (0.16) 0.17/0.84 0.11/1.05 <0.001
Mean cup depth (mm) 0.19 (0.09) 0.05/0.40 0.01/0.47 0.18 (0.08) 0.04/0.36 0.02/0.45 0.16
Maximum cup depth (mm) 0.53 (0.21) 0.14/0.98 0.04/1.28 0.51 (0.22) 0.11/0.96 0.07/1.16 0.20
Height variation contour (mm) 0.36 (0.09) 0.20/0.55 0.14/0.67 0.38 (0.10) 0.21/0.61 0.16/0.78 0.002
Cup shape measure −0.17 (0.06) −0.30/−0.06 −0.37/−0.02 −0.18 (0.06) −0.30/−0.06 −0.34/−0.01 0.13
Mean RNFL thickness (mm) 0.21 (0.06) 0.08/0.33 −0.05/0.40 0.23 (0.07) 0.09/0.37 0.03/0.44 <0.001
RNFL cross-sectional area (mm2) 1.06 (0.32) 0.42/1.60 −0.29/2.01 1.15 (0.34) 0.43/1.83 0.13/2.11 <0.001
Table 4.
 
Spearman’s Rank Correlation between Optic Nerve Head Topographic Parameters and Global Disc Area
Table 4.
 
Spearman’s Rank Correlation between Optic Nerve Head Topographic Parameters and Global Disc Area
Parameter r s P
Cup area (mm2) 0.54 0.000
Rim area (mm2) 0.47 0.000
Cup volume (mm3) 0.45 0.000
Cup-to-disc area ratio 0.38 0.000
Mean cup depth (mm) 0.34 0.000
Cup shape measure 0.29 0.000
Maximum cup depth (mm) 0.25 0.000
Mean RNFL thickness (mm) −0.15 0.000
RNFL cross-sectional area (mm2) 0.14 0.000
Rim volume (mm3) 0.12 0.000
Height variation contour (mm) −0.03 0.31
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×