Assessment of peripapillary choroidal thickness in primary open-angle glaucoma patients with choroidal vascular prominence

Purpose To investigate the relationship between peripapillary choroidal thickness (PCT) and choroidal vascular prominence (CVP) colocalized with retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) defect in primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) eyes and to evaluate the relationship between PCT and POAG severity. Methods...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Japanese journal of ophthalmology 2017-11, Vol.61 (6), p.448-456
Hauptverfasser: Song, Yong Ju, Kim, Young Kook, Jeoung, Jin Wook, Park, Ki Ho
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose To investigate the relationship between peripapillary choroidal thickness (PCT) and choroidal vascular prominence (CVP) colocalized with retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) defect in primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) eyes and to evaluate the relationship between PCT and POAG severity. Methods In this cross-sectional comparative study, 29 POAG patients with CVP on RNFL imaging (Group A), 70 POAG patients without CVP (Group B) and 63 healthy controls (Group C) were examined. Various factors including age, intraocular pressure (IOP), spherical equivalent (SE), axial length (AXL), central corneal thickness (CCT), peripapillary RNFL thickness, visual-field mean deviation (MD) and pattern standard deviation (PSD) were investigated. Also, PCT (average, clock-hour) was measured by swept-source optical coherence tomography. The differences in each of the factors were analyzed among the groups. Results There was no significant difference in age, IOP, SE, AXL or CCT among the three groups (P > 0.05). MD, PSD and RNFL thickness (RNFLT) in Groups A and B were lower than in Group C, but there was no difference between Groups A and B. There was a significant difference in adjusted PCT between Groups A and B (79.39 ± 6.56 vs. 115.87 ± 4.25, P 
ISSN:0021-5155
1613-2246
DOI:10.1007/s10384-017-0535-8