Comparison of diagnostic capability of macular ganglion cell complex vs retinal fiber layer thickness in primary open angle glaucoma patients of Indian origin.

Autor: Srivastava, Arpit, Sharma, Vikas, Kapoor, Gaurav, V. K. B., Muthu Kamal, K., Baranwal Vinod, Singh, Ankita
Předmět:
Zdroj: Indian Journal of Ophthalmology; 2024 Supplement, Vol. 72, pS628-S633, 6p
Abstrakt: Purpose: Comparison of diagnostic capability of macular ganglion cell complex thickness vs. retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness in patients of primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). Settings and Design: This cross-sectional observational study was carried out between June 2021 and October 2022 at a tertiary care hospital in North India. Methods: A total of 118 eyes were included in the study with 30 control and the rest 88 eyes with POAG were divided into three groups based on visual field loss Group 1 (30 eyes): early field loss with mean deviation (MD) < -6 dB; Group 2 (30 eyes): moderate field loss with MD -6 to -12 dB; and Group 3 (28 eyes): severe field loss with MD > -12 dB. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans to measure RNFL loss and ganglion cell inferior plexiform layer (GCIPL) loss were taken for each patient. Statistical Analysis Used: Categorical variables were analyzed using either the Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. A receiver operating characteristics analysis was calculated to determine optimal cut-off values of superior, inferior, and average GCIPL and RNFL for determining the severity of field loss as compared to controls (30 normal eyes). Results: In the mild field loss group the sensitivity of superior, inferior, and average GCIPL was 86.7, 96.7, and 96.7%, respectively. Similarly, the specificity was 96.7, 93.3, and 100%, respectively. In the same group, the sensitivity of superior, inferior, and average RNFL was 70, 93, and 66%, respectively. Similarly, the specificity was 46.7, 83.3, and 70%, respectively. In the moderate and severe groups, the results were comparable. Conclusion: The sensitivity and specificity of GCIPL loss are significantly better than that of RNFL parameters in the mild field loss group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Databáze: Complementary Index