PloS one · 2020
Assessment of primary open-angle glaucoma peripapillary and macular choroidal area using enhanced depth imaging optical coherence tomography.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Kojima Hirokazu, Hirooka Kazuyuki, Nitta Eri, Sonoda Shozo, Sakamoto Taiji, Kiuchi Yoshiaki
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The current study investigated differences in the peripapillary and macular choroidal areas between patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) and healthy controls because the choroid may potentially play a role in glaucoma pathophysiology.
METHODS: We assessed 57 healthy controls and 42 POAG patients in a cross-sectional comparative study. We used enhanced depth imaging optical coherence tomography (EDI-OCT) and then converted the luminal and interstitial areas to binary images using the Niblack method to obtain peripapillary and macular choroidal images. The relationship between the choroidal area and demographic and ocular characteristics were determined with univariate and multivariate linear regression analysis.
RESULTS: Regarding the peripapillary choroidal area, no significant differences were noted between healthy controls and POAG patients (1,836,336 ± 605,617 μm2 vs. 1,775,566 ± 477,317 μm2, respectively, P = 0.60). There were also no differences found for the macular choroidal area (controls: 347,220 ± 115,409 μm2, patients: 342,193 ± 104,356 μm2, P = 0.83). Multivariate regression analysis in the POAG patients revealed there was a significant relationship between the macular choroidal area and age (β = -0.525, P = 0.002) and axial length (β = -0.458, P = 0.005). In contrast, no correlation was found between peripapillary choroidal areas and various attributes in the POAG patients.
CONCLUSIONS: EDI-OCT showed no differences in the peripapillary or macular choroidal area in healthy individuals compared to POAG patients.
METHODS: We assessed 57 healthy controls and 42 POAG patients in a cross-sectional comparative study. We used enhanced depth imaging optical coherence tomography (EDI-OCT) and then converted the luminal and interstitial areas to binary images using the Niblack method to obtain peripapillary and macular choroidal images. The relationship between the choroidal area and demographic and ocular characteristics were determined with univariate and multivariate linear regression analysis.
RESULTS: Regarding the peripapillary choroidal area, no significant differences were noted between healthy controls and POAG patients (1,836,336 ± 605,617 μm2 vs. 1,775,566 ± 477,317 μm2, respectively, P = 0.60). There were also no differences found for the macular choroidal area (controls: 347,220 ± 115,409 μm2, patients: 342,193 ± 104,356 μm2, P = 0.83). Multivariate regression analysis in the POAG patients revealed there was a significant relationship between the macular choroidal area and age (β = -0.525, P = 0.002) and axial length (β = -0.458, P = 0.005). In contrast, no correlation was found between peripapillary choroidal areas and various attributes in the POAG patients.
CONCLUSIONS: EDI-OCT showed no differences in the peripapillary or macular choroidal area in healthy individuals compared to POAG patients.