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

Author:

Srivastava Arpit1,Sharma Vikas2,Kapoor Gaurav3,Kamal V K B Muthu4,Baranwal Vinod K5,Singh Ankita6

Affiliation:

1. Eye Department, Military Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

2. Eye Department, 5 Air Force Hospital, Jorhat, Assam, India

3. Eye Department, Command Hospital Chandimandir, Chandigarh, India

4. Eye Department, Indian Naval Hospital Ship Sanjivni, Kochi, Tamil Nadu, India

5. TC Eye Center, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

6. Eye Department, Military Hospital Bathinda, Punjab, India

Abstract

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.

Publisher

Medknow

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3