The current study has limitations. First, the sample size was small. This is attributable to the low prevalence of DH.
14,17 Despite the small sample size, we observed the distinct difference between the groups in terms of recent structural LC alteration. Second, 25% of eyes with DH, and 27% of eyes without DH were excluded because of the poor visualization of the temporal periphery. Although we applied algorithms including EDI,
38 shadow removal, and contrast enhancement,
40 the techniques still did not provide sufficient image quality to delineate the peripheral LC in all patients. However, even if we assume that all of the 15 excluded eyes from DH group had no LC alteration in the LC, and all of the 13 excluded eyes from the non-DH group had LC alteration, the projected rate of recent LC alteration still is significantly higher in the DH group than in the non-DH group (67.8% vs. 36.0%,
P = 0.001, χ
2 test). In addition, the degree of observed LC alteration often was markedly larger, in the DH group compared to the non-DH group (
Fig. 4), further underlining the difference between the DH and non-DH groups. Further study using technologies that enable better visualization of the LC must be performed. Third, only temporal LC periphery was considered for evaluation in the radial images. This was because of the poor visualization of the nasal half of the LC due to thick neuroretinal rim or overlying large retinal vessels. However, it is known that DH may occur in the nasal half.
5,14,20,25 Due to the study design, the possibility that recent LC alteration also is involved in the nasal half could not be denied by the current study. A better technique that can visualize the whole LC including the nasal periphery, is needed to examine the alteration in the nasal periphery. Fourth, the non-DH group was matched with the DH group for age, visual field MD, and IOP parameters. This was done to control the potential confounding factors that may be involved in the recent LC alteration. However, this selection of patients may affect the analysis for the factors associated with recent LC alteration. Thus, caution is needed to interpret the results shown in
Tables 3 and
4. Further study is needed in the general glaucoma population to elucidate the factors involved in the LC alteration. Lastly, the Fo-BMO axis was not applied to determine the location of the DH. Thus, the clock-hour location of the DH was not defined in an anatomically consistent way among patients. Regardless, this limitation does not affect our study conclusion because the disc photograph and EDI-OCT scan were aligned within each eye.