4.6 Article

Progressive change in peripapillary atrophy in myopic glaucomatous eyes

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 102, 期 11, 页码 1527-1532

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311152

关键词

glaucoma; imaging; intraocular pressure; optic nerve

资金

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [NRF-2014R1A1A3A04051089]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim To evaluate the progressive change in peripapillary atrophy (PPA) according to its shape and to explore the relationship between PPA progression and glaucoma worsening in myopic eyes. Methods A total of 159 eyes of 159 patients with myopic (axial length (AXL) >24mm) glaucoma (mean follow-up 4.4 years, 35 eyes with minimal PPA, 40 concentric-type PPA eyes (>270 degrees around the optic disc) and 84 eccentric-type PPA eyes (<270 degrees)) were included. Sequential stereoscopic colour optic disc photographs were evaluated to qualitatively determine PPA progression. Factors associated with PPA progression were explored by Cox proportional hazard modelling in each PPA group. Results Patients with concentric PPA were older than patients with eccentric PPA (54.111.7 vs 44.1 +/- 11.7 years; P<0.001), and AXL was longer in the eccentric group than in the other groups (25.54 +/- 1.68 vs 25.28 +/- 1.53 vs 26.41 +/- 1.29mm; P<0.001). Twenty-six eyes (65%) in the concentric group and 36 eyes (42.9%) in the eccentric group showed PPA progression. Older age (hazard ratio (HR) 1.059, P=0.008), worse baseline visual field mean deviation (HR 0.857, P=0.009) and greater baseline PPA area (HR 1.000, P=0.012) were associated with PPA progression in the concentric type. Glaucoma progression (HR 3.690, P=0.002) and longer AXL (HR 1.521, P=0.002) were associated with PPA progression in the eccentric type. Conclusions Relationship between glaucoma worsening and PPA progression was strongest in myopic glaucomatous eyes with eccentric type PPA.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据