Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2012
Comparison of myopic and nonmyopic disc hemorrhage in primary open-angle glaucoma.
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.
Kim Ho Soong, Park Ki Ho, Jeoung Jin Wook, Park Joohyun
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the topographic characteristics of myopic and nonmyopic disc hemorrhage (DH) in primary open-angle glaucoma.
METHODS: Patients were assigned to the myopic DH group (spherical equivalent of -1.0 diopters or less) or to the nonmyopic DH group (emmetropia and hyperopia). DH was classified as lamina cribrosa-, cup margin-, disc rim-, or peripapillary-type DH according to its proximal location. The DH types of the two groups were compared using Fisher's exact test. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the factors associated with myopia.
RESULTS: Thirty-four eyes were assigned to the myopic DH group and 42 eyes to the nonmyopic DH group. A significantly higher proportion (32.4 %) of lamina cribrosa-type DH was found in the myopic DH group than in the nonmyopic DH group (4.8 %; P = 0.008). Eyes with lamina cribrosa-type DH were 12.59 times more likely to be myopic than were eyes with peripapillary-type DH (95 % CI: 1.22-129.53; P = 0.033).
CONCLUSIONS: Lamina cribrosa-type DH was significantly more common in myopic eyes than in nonmyopic eyes. This result suggests that the pathogenesis of DH may differ between myopic DH and nonmyopic DH.
METHODS: Patients were assigned to the myopic DH group (spherical equivalent of -1.0 diopters or less) or to the nonmyopic DH group (emmetropia and hyperopia). DH was classified as lamina cribrosa-, cup margin-, disc rim-, or peripapillary-type DH according to its proximal location. The DH types of the two groups were compared using Fisher's exact test. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the factors associated with myopia.
RESULTS: Thirty-four eyes were assigned to the myopic DH group and 42 eyes to the nonmyopic DH group. A significantly higher proportion (32.4 %) of lamina cribrosa-type DH was found in the myopic DH group than in the nonmyopic DH group (4.8 %; P = 0.008). Eyes with lamina cribrosa-type DH were 12.59 times more likely to be myopic than were eyes with peripapillary-type DH (95 % CI: 1.22-129.53; P = 0.033).
CONCLUSIONS: Lamina cribrosa-type DH was significantly more common in myopic eyes than in nonmyopic eyes. This result suggests that the pathogenesis of DH may differ between myopic DH and nonmyopic DH.