Scanning laser polarimetry, retinal nerve fiber layer photography, and perimetry in the diagnosis of glaucomatous nerve fiber defects
Scanning laser polarimetry, retinal nerve fiber layer photography, and perimetry in the diagnosis of glaucomatous nerve fiber defects
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s004170000196
复制
发表时间：
2000-11-01
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
Steuhl, KP
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kremmer, S;Ayertey, HD;Steuhl, KP
背景：视网膜神经纤维层缺损是早期青光眼损害的一部分。在本研究中，我们比较了视网膜神经纤维层摄影术（NFP）和扫描激光偏振仪（SLP）检测青光眼患者神经纤维层缺陷的能力。研究方法：除眼科标准检查外，我们还对150例青光眼患者[74例原发性开角型青光眼（POAG）和76例正常眼压性青光眼（NTG）]进行了NFP（Zeiss Ikon眼底照相机30度，绿色滤光片）、SLP（GDx，1.0.14和2.0.09，LDT）和自动视野检查（Oculus，Twinfield，30度）。根据改良的Aulhorn分类法对周边检查结果进行评价。根据Quigley对NFP和SLP进行分级。结果：POAG中，42%的NFP和5%的SLP无法评估。在NTG中，24%的NFP和4%的SLP不可评价。在POAG中，NFP和SLP直接一致率为54.5%，在NTG中为55%，在POAG中为39.5%，在NTG中为41%。在POAG中，NFP / SLP与视野检查结果的一致率为35%/30%，一个分期的差异率为56%/58%。在NTG。在52%/48%的病例中，NFP / SLP与视野检查一致，在32%/39%的病例中仅相差一个阶段。在不到13%的病例中发现了较大的偏差。结论：NFP和SLP对神经纤维层损伤的分级大多一致或偏差较小。在临床应用中，SLP比NFP具有优势，因为可以获得更高的高质量图像率，并且不必扩大瞳孔。此外，SLP测量提供了定量数据，并且存在大量规范数据库。
Background: Retinal nerve fiber layer defects are part of early glaucomatous damage. In the present study, we compared the ability of retinal nerve fiber layer photography (NFP) and scanning laser polarimetry (SLP) to detect nerve fiber layer defects in glaucoma patients. Methods: Besides ophthalmological standard examinations, we performed NFP (Zeiss Ikon fundus camera 30 degrees, green filter), SLP (GDx, 1.0.14 and 2.0.09, LDT) and automated perimetry (Oculus, Twinfield, 30 degrees) in 150 glaucoma patients [74 with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) and 76 with normal-tension glaucoma (NTG)]. The perimetric results were evaluated according to a modified Aulhorn classification. NFP and SLP were graded according to Quigley. Results: In POAG, 42% of NFP and 5% of SLP were not evaluable. In NTG, 24% of NFP and 4% of SLP were not evaluable. In POAG, NFP and SLP revealed a direct agreement in 54.5%, and in NTG, 55%; there was a small difference of one stage in 39.5% (POAG) and 41% (NTG). In POAG, NFP / SLP showed agreement with perimetric results in 35%/30% of cases and differences of one stage in 56%/58%. In NTG. NFP / SLP agreed with perimetry in 52%/48% of cases and differed by only one stage in 32%/39%. Larger deviations were found in less than 13% of the cases. Conclusions: NFP and SLP mostly showed good agreement or little deviation as to grading of nerve fiber layer damage. In clinical use, SLP has advantages over NFP because a higher rate of good-quality images can be obtained and pupils do not have to be dilated. Additionally, SLP measurements provide quantitative data and a large normative data base exists.