Eye (London, England) · 2024
A parafoveal retinal cones analysis using adaptive-optics retinal camera in patients with primary open angle glaucoma.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Trolli Eleonora, Roda Matilde, Valsecchi Nicola, Cacciatore Davide, Nardi Elena, Della Pasqua Valentina, Mercanti Andrea, Fontana Luigi
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To study the density, spacing, and regularity of retinal cone photoreceptors using an Adaptive Optics (AO) retinal camera (Rtx1TM, Imagine Eyes, Orsay, France) in patients with Primary Open Angle Glaucoma (POAG) and to compare the outcomes with those of healthy age-matched control subjects.
METHODS: The study included 43 eyes with POAG and 31 eyes of normal subjects. POAG patients were divided into three groups according to the severity of the visual field defect. The AO Rtx1TM was used to obtain images of the parafoveal cone mosaic to calculate cone values. Analysis was performed at two and four degrees of eccentricity from the fovea along the four meridians (nasal, temporal, superior, inferior).
RESULTS: In POAG eyes, the mean ± standard deviation (SD) cone density at 2° considering all meridians was significantly lower than in normal controls (23,058.6 ± 3532.0 cones/mm2, and 25,511.7 ± 3157.5 cones/mm2, respectively; p = 0.003). Cone spacing was 7.3 ± 0.5 µm in POAG and 7.0 ± 0.4 µm in normal controls (p = 0.005), and cone regularity was 90.5 ± 4.9% and 93.5 ± 1.9% in POAG and normal controls, respectively (p < 0.001). At 4° similar trends were observed. However, no significant differences were found among patients with different severity of POAG (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Using AO Rtx1TM, significant differences in retinal photoreceptors mosaic pattern were found between POAG eyes and age-matched controls, indicating a reduction in photoreceptors in POAG. No significant differences in retinal photoreceptor values were found among the three POAG groups.
METHODS: The study included 43 eyes with POAG and 31 eyes of normal subjects. POAG patients were divided into three groups according to the severity of the visual field defect. The AO Rtx1TM was used to obtain images of the parafoveal cone mosaic to calculate cone values. Analysis was performed at two and four degrees of eccentricity from the fovea along the four meridians (nasal, temporal, superior, inferior).
RESULTS: In POAG eyes, the mean ± standard deviation (SD) cone density at 2° considering all meridians was significantly lower than in normal controls (23,058.6 ± 3532.0 cones/mm2, and 25,511.7 ± 3157.5 cones/mm2, respectively; p = 0.003). Cone spacing was 7.3 ± 0.5 µm in POAG and 7.0 ± 0.4 µm in normal controls (p = 0.005), and cone regularity was 90.5 ± 4.9% and 93.5 ± 1.9% in POAG and normal controls, respectively (p < 0.001). At 4° similar trends were observed. However, no significant differences were found among patients with different severity of POAG (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Using AO Rtx1TM, significant differences in retinal photoreceptors mosaic pattern were found between POAG eyes and age-matched controls, indicating a reduction in photoreceptors in POAG. No significant differences in retinal photoreceptor values were found among the three POAG groups.