4.3 Article

The influence of corneal astigmatism on retinal nerve fiber layer thickness and optic nerve head parameter measurements by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography

Journal

DIAGNOSTIC PATHOLOGY
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1746-1596-7-55

Keywords

High myopia; Corneal ASTIGMATISM; Optical coherence tomography

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: To evaluate the influence of corneal astigmatism (CA) on retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness and optic nerve head(ONH) parameters measured with spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (OCT) in high myopes patients before refractive surgery. Methods: Seventy eyes of 35 consecutive refractive surgery candidates were included in this study. The mean age of the subjects was 26.42 +/- 6.95 years, the average CA was -1.17 diopters (D; SD 0.64; range -0.2 to-3.3D), All subjects in this study were WTR CA. 34 eyes were in the normal CA group with a mean CA was -0.67 +/- 0.28D, 36 eyes were in the high CA group with an average CA of -1.65 +/- 0.49D. All subjects underwent ophthalmic examination and imaging with the Cirrus HD OCT. Results: No significant difference was noted in the average cup-to-disk ratio, vertical cup-to-disk ratio and cup volume (all P values > 0.05). Compared with the normal CA group, the high CA group had a larger disc area and rim area, thinner RNFL thickness in the temporal quadrant, and the superotemporal and inferotemporal peaks were farther to the temporal horizon (All P values < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in global average RNFL thickness, as well as superior, nasal and inferior quadrant RNFL thickness (all P values > 0.05). Conclusions: The degree of with-the-rule CA should be considered when interpreting ONH parameters and peripapillary RNFL thickness measured by the Cirrus HD OCT. Virtual slides: The virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/1148475676881895

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available