Values of some topographic parameters of optic nerve head obtained by Heidelberg retina tomograph II in volunteers and different stage primary open-angle glaucoma patients

Purpose: То assess the values of the top five topographic parameters of optic nerve head (ONH) obtained by Heidelberg retina tomograph (HRT) II in volunteers and primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) patients with different stage of perimetric changes.

Methods: 73 eyes (38 volunteers at the age of 56 years ±13, 11 men and 27 women) and 170 eyes (90 patients at the age of 66 years ±12, 33 men and 57 women) were examined. We performed the comprehensive ophthalmic examination, standard automated perimetry and measurement of the top five topographic parameters of ONH — rim area, rim volume, cup shape measure, height variation contour и mean RNFL thickness. For the purpose of this study we used HRT II.

Results: We determine the values of the investigated topographic parameters of the ONH for healthy volunteers (rim area = 1.68±0.22 mm2, rim volume = 0.44±0.07 mm3, cup shape measure = –0.2±0.06, height variation contour = 0.38±0.08 mm and mean RNFL thickness = 0.24±0.03 mm) and for the patients in different perimetric glaucoma stages (early stage: rim area = 1.52±0.47 mm2, rim volume = 0.38±0.17 mm3, cup shape measure = –0.14±0.1, height variation contour = 0.36±0.09 mm and mean RNFL thickness = 0.22±0.11 mm; moderate stage: rim area = 1.21±0.46 mm2, rim volume = 0.27±0.17 mm3, cup shape measure = –0.09±0.1, height variation contour = 0.36±0.17 mm and mean RNFL thickness = 0.16±0.12 mm; severe stage: rim area = 0.97±0.01 mm2, rim volume = 0.18±0.17 mm3, cup shape measure = –0.06±0.1, height variation contour = 0.28±0.11 mm and mean RNFL thickness = 0.17±0.11 mm). Hodapp-Parrish-Anderson (H-P-A) ’s staging system includes three separate levels (early, moderate and severe) of glaucoma according to visual field defects. Each stage is additionally characterized by the values of the top five topographic parameters of the ONH.

Conclusion: Early diagnosis, staging and follow-up of POAG are based on both function and structure assessment. The created value intervals for the top five topographic parameters of the ONH for healthy volunteers and patients in different perimetric stages of glaucoma help and support their right classification. Patients with different level changes require different kind of treatment at different price. In this respect the acquired data is an initial step at the development of POAG staging system based on the topographic parameters of ONH obtained by HRT II.

1. Куроедов АВ, Городничий ВВ, Огородникова ВЮ, Цалкина ЕБ, Эркенова АА. Морфометрические характеристики прогрессирования перипапиллярной атрофии у пациентов с различными формами открытоугольной глаукомы//Клин. Офтальмол — 2010‑3:76‑9.

2. Куроедов АВ, Романенко ИА. Изменеия диска зрительного нерва у пациентов с глаукомой при продолжительном динамическом наблюдении, определяемых при помощи компьютерной ретинотомографии// Офтальмол. Ведомост — 2010‑2:4‑10.

3. Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study// 2. Visual field test scoring and reliability//Ophthalmology — 1994‑101:1445‑55.

4. Anderson DR, Caprioli J. The optic nerve in glaucoma, in Jaeger E (ed): Duanes Clinical Ophthalmology, Vol 3. Philadelphia, Lippincott-Raven, 1995. chap 48.

5. Armaly MF, Krueger DE, Maunder L, et al. Biostatistical analysis of the collaborative glaucoma study. I. Summary report of the risk factors for glaucomatous visualfield defects// Arch Ophthalmol — 1980; 98:2163‑71.

6. Armaly MF. The optic cup in the normal eye. I. Cup width, depth, vessel displacement, ocular tension and outflow facility// Am J Ophthalmol 1969; 68:401‑7.

7. Bayer A, Harasymowycz P, Henderer JD, et al. Validity of a new disk grading scale for estimating glaucomatous damage: correlation with visual field damage//Am J Ophthalmol 2002; 133:758‑63.

8. Bebie H, Flammer J, Bebie T. The cumulative defect curve: separation of local and diffuse components of visual field damage. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol//1989; 227:9‑12.

9. Bonomi L, Marraffa M, Marchini G, et al. Perimetric defects after a single acute angle-closure glaucoma attack. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol// 1999; 237:908‑14.

10. Chandler PA, Grant WM. Lectures on glaucoma. Philadelphia, Lea & Febiger: 1965; 431.

11. Drasdo N, Peaston WC. Sampling systems for visual field assessment and computerised perimetry// Br J Ophthalmol 1980; 64:705‑12.

12. Eid TM, Spaeth GL, Bitterman A, et al. Rate and amount of visual loss in 102 patients with open-angle glaucoma followed up for at least 15 years// Ophthalmology 2003; 110:900‑7.

13. Esterman B: Grid for scoring visual fields. I. Tangent screen// Arch Ophthalmol 1967; 77:780‑6.

14. European Glaucoma Society. Terminology and Guidelines for Glaucoma. Savona, Italy, IIIrd Edn, 2008 (www.eugs.org).

15. Feiner L, Piltz-Seymour JR. Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study: a summary of results to date// Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2003; 14:106‑11.

16. Feuer WJ, Parrish RK, Schiffman JC, et al. The Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study: reproducibility of cup / disk ratio measurements over time at an optic disc reading center// Am J Ophthalmol 2002; 133:19‑28.

17. Fuchs E, Duane A. Text-book of Ophthalmology. New York, D. Appleton and Co — 1892; 788.

18. Gandolfo E, Di Lorenzo G, Facino M, et al. Visual field and invalidity, in Mills RP (ed): Perimetry Update 1992 / 93. Amsterdam / NewYork, Kugler Publications: 1993; 497‑501.

19. Gandolfo E, Zingirian M, Capris P. A new proposal for classification and quantification of visual disability, in Mills RP, Heijl A (eds): Perimetry Update 1990 / 91. Amsterdam / New York, Kugler Publications: 1991; 545‑9.

20. Gramer E, Althaus G. Quantification and progression of the visual field defect in glaucoma without hypertension, glaucoma simplex and pigmentary glaucoma. A clinical study with the Delta Program of the 201 Octopus perimeter// Klin

21. Monatsbl Augenheilkd 1987; 191:184‑98.

22. Greve EL: Performance of computer assisted perimeters// Doc Ophthalmol —1982; 53:343‑80.

23. Heijl A, Lindgren G, Lindgren A, et al. Extended empirical statistical package for evaluation of single and multiple fields in glaucoma, in Mills RP, Heijl A (eds): Perimetry Update 1990 / 91. Amsterdam / New York, Kugler & Ghedini Publications:

24. ; 303‑15.

25. Henderer JD, Liu C, Kesen M, et al. Reliability of the disk damage likelihood scale// Am J Ophthalmol — 2003; 135:44‑8.

26. Hodapp E, Parrish RK II, Anderson DR. Clinical decisions in glaucoma. St. Louis, The C. V, Mosby Co.: 1993; 52‑61.

27. Hollows FC, Graham PA. Intra-ocular pressure, glaucoma, and glaucoma suspects in a defined population// Br J Ophthalmol — 1966; 50:570‑86.

28. Jonas JB, Gusek GC, Naumann GO. Optic disc morphometry in chronic primary open-angle glaucoma. II. Correlation of the intrapapillary morphometric data to visual field indices// Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol — 1988; 226:531‑8.

29. Lichter PR. Variability of expert observers in evaluating the optic disc// Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc — 1976; 74:532‑72.

30. Morescalchi F, Gandolfo E, Gandolfo F, Quaranta L, Capris P. A new scoring program for quantification of the binocular visual field, in Henson DB, Wall M (eds): Perimetry Update 2002 / 2003. The Hague, The Netherlands, Kugler Publications:

31. ; 21‑7.

32. Musch DC, Lichter PR, Guire KE, et al: The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study: study design, methods, and baseline characteristics of enrolled patients//Ophthalmology — 1999; 106:653‑62.