Cargando…

A Comparison Among Microperimetry, Standard Automated Perimetry and Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography in the Evaluation of the Macula in Glaucoma Eyes with Hemifield Defects

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the correlation between macular integrity assessment (MAIA) and standard automated perimetry (SAP) in detecting macular function damage in glaucoma and to explore the relationship between macular structure and functional damage by using spectral domain optical coherence tom...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tian, Tian, Cai, Yu, Li, Mei, Fang, Yuan, Pan, Yingzi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Healthcare 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8770759/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34800261
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40123-021-00423-5
_version_ 1784635436782583808
author Tian, Tian
Cai, Yu
Li, Mei
Fang, Yuan
Pan, Yingzi
author_facet Tian, Tian
Cai, Yu
Li, Mei
Fang, Yuan
Pan, Yingzi
author_sort Tian, Tian
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the correlation between macular integrity assessment (MAIA) and standard automated perimetry (SAP) in detecting macular function damage in glaucoma and to explore the relationship between macular structure and functional damage by using spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study. Seventy patients with glaucoma, with hemifield defects verified by Humphrey 24-2 examination, and 60 normal subjects underwent Humphrey 10-2 and MAIA expert 10-2 examinations. Patients with glaucoma with normal hemifields, as detected by SAP, were divided into a normal hemifield group and a visual field (VF) defect group. The difference in the retina and ganglion cell complex (GCC) thicknesses was analyzed between the abnormal and normal hemifields. RESULTS: Among the 70 glaucoma eyes, the results of MAIA and SAP were consistent for 66 (66/70, 94.3%). The others showed SAP hemifield defects, while MAIA was normal (4/70, 5.7%). There was a good correlation of the mean sensitivity between MAIA and SAP (P < 0.001). There also was a good correlation between the mean threshold of MAIA and the mean deviation (MD) of SAP (P = 0.008, r = 0.507). Among the patients with glaucoma with a normal hemifield, MAIA showed abnormal results in 50 eyes (50/66, 75.8%), which was consistent with the changes in the inner retina and GCC thicknesses. Meanwhile, MAIA showed normal results; there were no significant differences between patients with glaucoma and the normal group in the thicknesses of the inner retina and GCC. CONCLUSION: MAIA and SAP have good consistency in detecting macular dysfunction. MAIA can also identify abnormal VFs in the macular regions that may not be detected by SAP, which is consistent with the changes in the GCC thicknesses, suggesting that there may be central VF damage in patients with glaucoma that has not been previously identified.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8770759
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer Healthcare
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87707592022-02-02 A Comparison Among Microperimetry, Standard Automated Perimetry and Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography in the Evaluation of the Macula in Glaucoma Eyes with Hemifield Defects Tian, Tian Cai, Yu Li, Mei Fang, Yuan Pan, Yingzi Ophthalmol Ther Original Research INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the correlation between macular integrity assessment (MAIA) and standard automated perimetry (SAP) in detecting macular function damage in glaucoma and to explore the relationship between macular structure and functional damage by using spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study. Seventy patients with glaucoma, with hemifield defects verified by Humphrey 24-2 examination, and 60 normal subjects underwent Humphrey 10-2 and MAIA expert 10-2 examinations. Patients with glaucoma with normal hemifields, as detected by SAP, were divided into a normal hemifield group and a visual field (VF) defect group. The difference in the retina and ganglion cell complex (GCC) thicknesses was analyzed between the abnormal and normal hemifields. RESULTS: Among the 70 glaucoma eyes, the results of MAIA and SAP were consistent for 66 (66/70, 94.3%). The others showed SAP hemifield defects, while MAIA was normal (4/70, 5.7%). There was a good correlation of the mean sensitivity between MAIA and SAP (P < 0.001). There also was a good correlation between the mean threshold of MAIA and the mean deviation (MD) of SAP (P = 0.008, r = 0.507). Among the patients with glaucoma with a normal hemifield, MAIA showed abnormal results in 50 eyes (50/66, 75.8%), which was consistent with the changes in the inner retina and GCC thicknesses. Meanwhile, MAIA showed normal results; there were no significant differences between patients with glaucoma and the normal group in the thicknesses of the inner retina and GCC. CONCLUSION: MAIA and SAP have good consistency in detecting macular dysfunction. MAIA can also identify abnormal VFs in the macular regions that may not be detected by SAP, which is consistent with the changes in the GCC thicknesses, suggesting that there may be central VF damage in patients with glaucoma that has not been previously identified. Springer Healthcare 2021-11-20 2022-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8770759/ /pubmed/34800261 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40123-021-00423-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Research
Tian, Tian
Cai, Yu
Li, Mei
Fang, Yuan
Pan, Yingzi
A Comparison Among Microperimetry, Standard Automated Perimetry and Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography in the Evaluation of the Macula in Glaucoma Eyes with Hemifield Defects
title A Comparison Among Microperimetry, Standard Automated Perimetry and Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography in the Evaluation of the Macula in Glaucoma Eyes with Hemifield Defects
title_full A Comparison Among Microperimetry, Standard Automated Perimetry and Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography in the Evaluation of the Macula in Glaucoma Eyes with Hemifield Defects
title_fullStr A Comparison Among Microperimetry, Standard Automated Perimetry and Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography in the Evaluation of the Macula in Glaucoma Eyes with Hemifield Defects
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison Among Microperimetry, Standard Automated Perimetry and Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography in the Evaluation of the Macula in Glaucoma Eyes with Hemifield Defects
title_short A Comparison Among Microperimetry, Standard Automated Perimetry and Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography in the Evaluation of the Macula in Glaucoma Eyes with Hemifield Defects
title_sort comparison among microperimetry, standard automated perimetry and spectral domain optical coherence tomography in the evaluation of the macula in glaucoma eyes with hemifield defects
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8770759/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34800261
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40123-021-00423-5
work_keys_str_mv AT tiantian acomparisonamongmicroperimetrystandardautomatedperimetryandspectraldomainopticalcoherencetomographyintheevaluationofthemaculainglaucomaeyeswithhemifielddefects
AT caiyu acomparisonamongmicroperimetrystandardautomatedperimetryandspectraldomainopticalcoherencetomographyintheevaluationofthemaculainglaucomaeyeswithhemifielddefects
AT limei acomparisonamongmicroperimetrystandardautomatedperimetryandspectraldomainopticalcoherencetomographyintheevaluationofthemaculainglaucomaeyeswithhemifielddefects
AT fangyuan acomparisonamongmicroperimetrystandardautomatedperimetryandspectraldomainopticalcoherencetomographyintheevaluationofthemaculainglaucomaeyeswithhemifielddefects
AT panyingzi acomparisonamongmicroperimetrystandardautomatedperimetryandspectraldomainopticalcoherencetomographyintheevaluationofthemaculainglaucomaeyeswithhemifielddefects
AT tiantian comparisonamongmicroperimetrystandardautomatedperimetryandspectraldomainopticalcoherencetomographyintheevaluationofthemaculainglaucomaeyeswithhemifielddefects
AT caiyu comparisonamongmicroperimetrystandardautomatedperimetryandspectraldomainopticalcoherencetomographyintheevaluationofthemaculainglaucomaeyeswithhemifielddefects
AT limei comparisonamongmicroperimetrystandardautomatedperimetryandspectraldomainopticalcoherencetomographyintheevaluationofthemaculainglaucomaeyeswithhemifielddefects
AT fangyuan comparisonamongmicroperimetrystandardautomatedperimetryandspectraldomainopticalcoherencetomographyintheevaluationofthemaculainglaucomaeyeswithhemifielddefects
AT panyingzi comparisonamongmicroperimetrystandardautomatedperimetryandspectraldomainopticalcoherencetomographyintheevaluationofthemaculainglaucomaeyeswithhemifielddefects