There was no difference in the success rate between the Ahmed Glaucoma Valve and ECP in refractory glaucoma. The eyes that underwent Ahmed tube shunt implantation had more complications than those treated with ECP.
Purpose
To evaluate and compare the ability of optical coherence tomography (OCT) retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL), optic nerve head, and macular thickness parameters to detect progressive structural damage in glaucoma.
Methods
This observational cohort study included 253 eyes of 253 patients. Images were obtained annually with the Stratus OCT (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA) along with optic disc stereophotographs and standard automated perimetry (SAP) visual fields. The median follow-up time was 4.01 years. Progression was determined by the Guided Progression Analysis software for SAP (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc.) and by masked assessment of optic disc stereophotographs performed by expert graders. Random coefficient models and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to evaluate the relationship between change in Stratus OCT parameters over time and progression as determined by SAP and/or stereophotographs.
Results
From the 253 eyes, 31 (13%) showed progression over time by stereophotographs and/or SAP. Mean rates of change in average RNFL thickness were significantly higher for progressors compared with nonprogressors (−0.72 μm/y vs. 0.14 μm/y; P = 0.004), with sensitivity of 77% for specificity of 80%. RNFL parameters performed significantly better than ONH and macular thickness measurements in discriminating progressors from nonprogressors. The parameters with the largest ROC curve areas for each scanning area were inferior RNFL thickness (0.84), cup area (0.66), and inferior inner macula thickness (0.64).
Conclusions
Stratus OCT RNFL parameters discriminated between eyes progressing by visual fields or optic disc photographs and eyes that remained stable by these methods and performed significantly better than ONH and macular thickness parameters in detecting change over time.
Aim: To compare the results of the water drinking test between glaucomatous eyes with and without visual field progression. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 76 eyes of 76 open angle glaucoma patients followed for a mean period of 26.0 (SD 13.8) months. Patients were submitted to the water drinking test at the beginning of the follow up period. Reliable achromatic automated perimetry tests performed during the studied period were used to characterise visual field progression. All subjects were under clinical therapy and had an intraocular pressure (IOP) lower than 17 mm Hg monitored by isolated measurements during the follow up period. The results of the water drinking test were compared between glaucomatous eyes with and without visual field progression. Results: Twenty eight eyes reached definite visual field progression. There were no significant differences in the mean age, sex, race, basal IOP, number of antiglaucomatous drugs, initial mean deviation (MD), and corrected pattern standard deviation (CPSD) between eyes that showed visual field progression and the ones who did not progress. A significant difference of 1.9 (SD 0.6) mm Hg (p = 0.001, analysis of covariance; 95% CI 0.8 to 3.0) was observed between glaucomatous eyes that showed visual field deterioration and glaucomatous eyes that did not progress. A significant difference of 16.8% (SD 4.6%) in the mean percentage of IOP variation was also observed between the two groups (p,0.001, analysis of covariance; 95% CI 7.7 to 26.0). Conclusions: Mean IOP peak and percentage of IOP variation during water drinking test were significantly higher in patients with visual field progression compared with patients who did not progress.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.