Display options
Cite
Pahlitzsch M, Torun N, Erb C, et al. Significance of the disc damage likelihood scale objectively measured by a non-mydriatic fundus camera in preperimetric glaucoma. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015;9:2147-58doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S93213.
Pahlitzsch, M., Torun, N., Erb, C., Bruenner, J., Maier, A. K., Gonnermann, J., Bertelmann, E., & Klamann, M. K. (2015). Significance of the disc damage likelihood scale objectively measured by a non-mydriatic fundus camera in preperimetric glaucoma. Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 92147-58. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S93213
Pahlitzsch, Milena, et al. "Significance of the disc damage likelihood scale objectively measured by a non-mydriatic fundus camera in preperimetric glaucoma." Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) vol. 9 (2015): 2147-58. doi: https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S93213
Pahlitzsch M, Torun N, Erb C, Bruenner J, Maier AK, Gonnermann J, Bertelmann E, Klamann MK. Significance of the disc damage likelihood scale objectively measured by a non-mydriatic fundus camera in preperimetric glaucoma. Clin Ophthalmol. 2015 Nov 20;9:2147-58. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S93213. eCollection 2015. PMID: 26640365; PMCID: PMC4662372.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Clin Ophthalmol. 2015 Nov 20;9:2147-58. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S93213. eCollection 2015.

Significance of the disc damage likelihood scale objectively measured by a non-mydriatic fundus camera in preperimetric glaucoma.

Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)

Milena Pahlitzsch, Necip Torun, Carl Erb, Jeanette Bruenner, Anna Karina B Maier, Johannes Gonnermann, Eckart Bertelmann, Matthias K J Klamann

Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, University Medicine Charité, Campus Virchow Clinic, Berlin, Germany.
  2. Augenklinik am Wittenbergplatz, Berlin, Germany.

PMID: 26640365 PMCID: PMC4662372 DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S93213

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the correlation between the disc damage likelihood scale (DDLS) objectively measured by a non-mydriatic fundus camera, Heidelberg Retina Tomograph 3, and optic coherence tomography in preperimetric glaucoma.

METHODS: One-hundred-twenty-five patients with preperimetric primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) and pseudoexfoliation glaucoma (n=30) were included (mean age 58.9±15.9 years). All three devices graded the optic disc topography: Diagnosis 1 was defined as "outside normal limits", while Diagnosis 2 as "borderline or outside normal limits".

RESULTS: For Diagnosis 1, a significant correlation was shown between DDLS and Moorfields regression analysis (P=0.022), and for Diagnosis 2 with glaucoma probability score analysis (P=0.024), in POAG. In pseudoexfoliation glaucoma, DDLS did not correlate significantly with Heidelberg Retina Tomograph 3 and optic coherence tomography. Regarding the area under the curve the highest predictive power was demonstrated by the objective DDLS (0.513-0.824) compared to Burk (0.239-0.343) and Mikelberg (0.093-0.270) coefficients.

CONCLUSIONS: The DDLS showed a significant correlation to the Moorfields regression analysis in preperimetric POAG. The objective DDLS showed the highest predictive power and thus is an additive tool in diagnosing preperimetric glaucoma.

Keywords: DDLS; Heidelberg Retina Tomograph; optic coherence tomography; preperimetric glaucoma; stereophotography

References

  1. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991 Jan;109(1):77-83 - PubMed
  2. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000 Mar;41(3):741-8 - PubMed
  3. PLoS One. 2014 Oct 03;9(10):e108992 - PubMed
  4. Ophthalmology. 1993 May;100(5):587-97; discussion 597-8 - PubMed
  5. Eye (Lond). 2004 Nov;18(11):1207-13 - PubMed
  6. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2002;100:181-5; discussion 185-6 - PubMed
  7. Ophthalmology. 2006 Apr;113(4):603-11 - PubMed
  8. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002 Jun;120(6):714-20; discussion 829-30 - PubMed
  9. Ophthalmologe. 2012 Oct;109(10):962-75 - PubMed
  10. Ophthalmologica. 2013;229(2):101-5 - PubMed
  11. Arch Ophthalmol. 1967 Jul;78(1):35-43 - PubMed
  12. Invest Ophthalmol. 1973 Nov;12(11):814-29 - PubMed
  13. Am J Ophthalmol. 2015 Jan;159(1):160-8.e1-2 - PubMed
  14. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006 Aug;47(8):3374-80 - PubMed
  15. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002 Jun;133(6):758-63 - PubMed
  16. JAMA. 1994 Mar 2;271(9):703-7 - PubMed
  17. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004 Sep;45(9):3152-60 - PubMed
  18. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014 Mar 26;8:611-21 - PubMed
  19. Am J Ophthalmol. 1993 Jul 15;116(1):113-4 - PubMed
  20. Ophthalmology. 1998 Aug;105(8):1557-63 - PubMed
  21. Oman J Ophthalmol. 2013 May;6(2):103-7 - PubMed
  22. Ophthalmology. 2005 Mar;112(3):366-75 - PubMed
  23. Ophthalmology. 2005 Jan;112(1):3-9 - PubMed
  24. Eye (Lond). 2011 Jan;25(1):17-29 - PubMed
  25. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003 Jan;135(1):44-8 - PubMed
  26. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993 May;111(5):645-50 - PubMed
  27. PLoS One. 2014 Dec 23;9(12):e116115 - PubMed
  28. J Glaucoma. 1995 Aug;4(4):242-7 - PubMed
  29. Arch Ophthalmol. 1969 Aug;82(2):191-6 - PubMed
  30. Ophthalmologica. 2009;223(4):256-62 - PubMed
  31. Eye (Lond). 2006 Nov;20(11):1288-99 - PubMed
  32. Ophthalmologe. 2011 Oct;108(10):957-62 - PubMed
  33. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006 Dec;47(12):5348-55 - PubMed
  34. Eye (Lond). 2010 Jan;24(1):123-30 - PubMed
  35. Am J Ophthalmol. 1989 May 15;107(5):453-64 - PubMed
  36. Eye (Lond). 2011 Nov;25(11):1401-7 - PubMed
  37. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006 Apr;90(4):437-41 - PubMed
  38. Ophthalmologica. 2010;224(5):274-82 - PubMed
  39. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997 Feb;38(2):413-25 - PubMed

Publication Types