When discussing the findings obtained in our study, its limitations have also to be taken into account. First, the diagnosis of GON was based on the ophthalmoscopic appearance of the optic nerve head, without taking into account results of visual field examinations or findings obtained by optical coherence tomography. In view of a high interobserver variation in assessing the optic nerve head and in view of the ongoing discussion of a commonly accepted definition of glaucomatous optic neuropathy, the distinction between eyes with a normal optic nerve and eyes with GON in our study may be doubted.
25,26 It may be taken into account, however, that perimetric results obtained in highly myopic eyes can be treacherous for the diagnosis of GON since visual field defects in highly myopic eyes can be caused by a multitude of reasons besides glaucoma, including choroidal and retinal changes due to myopic axial elongation. Due to the retrospective character of the study design, optical coherence tomographic (OCT) images of the optic nerve head were not available. However, OCT images would not have been very helpful since spectral-domain OCT images do not allow a clear distinction between a normal optic nerve and GON in the majority of highly myopic eyes. Intraocular pressure was not taken as criterion for the definition of GON, since previous investigations, including population-based studies from East Asia, had shown that a single IOP measurement was within the statistically normal range in the majority of patients with GON.
27,28 Also, since IOP was one of the main outcome parameters, it could not be taken as a criterion for the definition of GON. Second, it may also be considered that for the diagnosis of GON as applied in our study, the neuroretinal rim had to have a clearly glaucoma-like appearance, either in the form of marked rim notches touching or almost touching the disc border or in the form of an advanced loss of neuroretinal rim with an optic cup extending to the disc border for a large sector of the optic nerve head (
Figs. 115521552–
4). This definition of GON might have led to an underestimation of the prevalence of GON since early stages of glaucoma, before the development of clear neuroretinal rim notches, might have been considered to be nonglaucomatous. It may have partially compensated for the weakness in the study design that visual field defects were not used for the definition of GON. Third, central corneal thickness measurements were not available so that the IOP readings could not be corrected for their dependence on corneal thickness.
29,30 Previous studies have shown, however, that central corneal thickness does not depend on axial length, so that this limitation in our study design not having corneal thickness measurements might have led to a higher variability in the IOP readings but may not have markedly influenced the results and conclusions of the study.
31 Fourth, the study was carried in a nationally well-known third-referral center for myopia, so that the study population may not have been representative for the general myopic or highly myopic population. The recruitment of the study participants may therefore have caused a bias. The study participants attended the hospital and were included into the study based on their myopia, while glaucoma was not a reason for attending the hospital. Fifth, the study population consisted only of Japanese, so that potential interethnic differences have to be taken into account when transferring the results onto other countries or world regions. Sixth, some of the disc photographs were taken in a nonstereoscopic manner. There were, however, usually at least two photographs for each optic disc available, so that the simultaneous observation of both optic disc images allowed some stereoscopic analysis. Seventh, if the observation of a missing association between IOP and GON in the highly myopic group in the present study population is valid, it will not indicate that there is no such association. It could be that highly myopic glaucomatous eyes as compared with nonhighly myopic glaucomatous eyes have a markedly lower IOP threshold to develop optic nerve damage. It could indicate that an IOP of perhaps lower than 10 mm Hg might be necessary to prevent the development of GON in these highly myopic eyes. Such low IOP values were not measured in the highly myopic population of the present study so that a potential association between very low IOP and lower prevalence of GON in high myopia could not be assessed in this study. One might discuss that in highly myopic eyes with axial elongation, associated enlargement and stretching of the optic disc and parapapillary region as the main risk factors for GON in high myopia a normal IOP may be sufficient to lead to GON, and that potentially a very low IOP—perhaps lower than 10 mm Hg—may be necessary for the therapy of such a condition.
11,32 Eighth, one may take into account that individuals classified as nonglaucomatous, in particular those with an axial length of more than 27.5 mm and who were younger than those individuals classified as glaucomatous, may eventually develop glaucomatous optic neuropathy later in their life. It might have led a partial misclassification bias. Ninth, the glaucomatous group as compared to the nonglaucomatous group had a significantly higher prevalence of antiglaucomatous therapy while the IOP did not differ significantly between both groups with an axial length >27.5 mm (
Table 2). It could suggest that the lack of a difference in IOP between both groups was due to the higher prevalence of IOP-lowering therapy in the glaucomatous group. In the multivariate analysis with adjustment for the prevalence of antiglaucomatous treatment, however, the IOP was not significantly associated with the glaucomatous versus non-glaucoma group. Tenth, IOP, in particular if measured only once, may be only one out of several parameters influencing the glaucoma susceptibility of the retinal ganglion cell axons when passing through the lamina cribrosa. In particular, for highly myopic eyes, additional parameters such as IOP fluctuation, blood pressure, and central corneal thickness, to name a few, may play a role; however, they were not assessed in the present retrospective study. Eleventh, due to its cross-sectional character, the present study could not assess at which time and at which axial length GON started to develop. Since axial length, in particular in medium and highly myopic eyes, tends to further increase over time, one cannot exclude the possibility that GON developed at an axial length of less than 27.5 mm while when included into the present study the axial length exceeded 27.5 mm so that the eye was included into the highly myopic group. Future prospective studies with follow-up examinations of the study participants may avoid these limitations of the present investigation.