May 2008
Volume 49, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2008
Progression Analysis in Perimetrically Unaffected Eyes of Glaucoma Patients With Scanning Laser Polarimetry
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • T. Mai
    Glaucoma service, The Rotterdam Eye Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • J. G. van der Schoot
    Glaucoma service, The Rotterdam Eye Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • N. J. Reus
    Glaucoma service, The Rotterdam Eye Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • T. P. Colen
    Department of Ophthalmology, The Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands
  • H. G. Lemij
    Glaucoma service, The Rotterdam Eye Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  T. Mai, CZM, F; J.G. van der Schoot, None; N.J. Reus, CZM, F; T.P. Colen, None; H.G. Lemij, CZM, F; CZM, C.
  • Footnotes
    Support  The Rotterdam Eye Hospital Research Foundation, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2008, Vol.49, 4641. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      T. Mai, J. G. van der Schoot, N. J. Reus, T. P. Colen, H. G. Lemij; Progression Analysis in Perimetrically Unaffected Eyes of Glaucoma Patients With Scanning Laser Polarimetry. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2008;49(13):4641. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract
 
Purpose:
 

1. To compare the proportion of progressing eyes and the time to progression, determined by the GDx progression analysis program (GPA), NFI change (reproducibly exceeding 35 or increasing ≥ 7), and conversion on VF (VF change), in initially perimetrically unaffected eyes of glaucoma patients with monocular visual field loss. 2. To explore the agreement in eye classification (progressing vs. non-progressing) between methods.

 
Methods:
 

In 34 primary open-angle glaucoma patients, we performed 6 monthly GDx VCC imaging and standard automated perimetry (SAP) over a period of 51.6 (SD = 0.7) months.

 
Results:
 

Eleven eyes (32.4%) were classified by 1 of 3 methods as progressing, whereas 5 eyes (45.5%) were classified by all 3. With GPA, 20.6% (7 eyes) showed progression; with the NFI change and VF change, this was 23.5% (7 eyes) and 20.6% (8 eyes), respectively. These percentages were similar for the 3 methods (p = 1.0, pair-wise comparisons). No differences in time to progression between these 3 methods were observed (p = 0.829). At baseline, 44.1% (15/34) of the eyes already had an NFI ≥ 35, of which 20% (3/15) showed progression during the follow-up (2 with all 3 methods and 1 with GPA and NFI change only). Of the eyes with an NFI < 35 at baseline, 26.3% (5/19) progressed.

 
Conclusions:
 

Although the proportion of progressing eyes in the initially perimetrically unaffected eyes of glaucoma patients with monocular VF loss did not differ between the 3 methods, not all methods identified the same eyes as progressing. Structural change detection was at least as sensitive as functional change detection; in many eyes it was even more sensitive.  

 
Keywords: retina • optic nerve • imaging/image analysis: clinical 
×
×

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.

×