Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume 2015, Article ID 215951, 8 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/215951
Research Article

Corneal Segmentation Analysis Increases Glaucoma Diagnostic Ability of Optic Nerve Head Examination, Heidelberg Retina Tomograph’s Moorfield’s Regression Analysis, and Glaucoma Probability Score

Hospital Clínico Universitario San Carlos, 28040 Madrid, Spain

Received 1 March 2015; Accepted 5 May 2015

Academic Editor: Edward Manche

Copyright © 2015 F. Saenz-Frances et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. G. L. Spaeth and S. C. Reddy, “Imaging of the optic disk in caring for patients with glaucoma: ophthalmoscopy and photography remain the gold standard,” Survey of Ophthalmology, vol. 59, no. 40, pp. 454–458, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. M. Hasanreisoglu, E. Priel, L. Naveh et al., “Digital versus film stereo-photography for assessment of the optic nerve head in glaucoma and glaucoma suspect patients,” Journal of Glaucoma, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 238–242, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. S. Ohkubo, H. Takeda, T. Higashide, T. Sasaki, and K. Sugiyama, “A pilot study to detect glaucoma with confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy compared with nonmydriatic stereoscopic photography in a community health screening,” Journal of Glaucoma, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 531–538, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. J. E. Morgan, N. J. L. Sheen, R. V. North et al., “Discrimination of glaucomatous optic neuropathy by digital stereoscopic analysis,” Ophthalmology, vol. 112, no. 5, pp. 855–862, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. J. M. Martinez-De-La-Casa, F. Saenz-Frances, A. M. Fernandez-Vidal et al., “Agreement between slit lamp examination and optical coherence tomography in estimating cup-disc ratios,” European Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 423–428, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  6. H. Saito, T. Tsutsumi, A. Iwase, A. Tomidokoro, and M. Araie, “Correlation of disc morphology quantified on stereophotographs to results by Heidelberg Retina Tomograph II, GDx variable corneal compensation, and visual field tests,” Ophthalmology, vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 282–289, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. N. J. Reus, H. G. Lemij, D. F. Garway-Heath et al., “Clinical assessment of stereoscopic optic disc photographs for glaucoma: the European Optic Disc Assessment Trial,” Ophthalmology, vol. 117, no. 4, pp. 717–723, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. R. Varma, W. C. Steinmann, and I. U. Scott, “Expert agreement in evaluating the optic disc for glaucoma,” Ophthalmology, vol. 99, no. 2, pp. 215–221, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. N. J. Reus, M. de Graaf, and H. G. Lemij, “Accuracy of GDx VCC, HRT I, and clinical assessment of stereoscopic optic nerve head photographs for diagnosing glaucoma,” British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 313–318, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. L. S. Abrams, I. U. Scott, G. L. Spaeth, H. A. Quigley, and R. Varma, “Agreement among optometrists, ophthalmologists, and residents in evaluating the optic disc for glaucoma,” Ophthalmology, vol. 101, no. 10, pp. 1662–1667, 1994. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. Y.-W. Lan, D. B. Henson, and A. J. Kwartz, “The correlation between optic nerve head topographic measurements, peripapillary nerve fibre layer thickness, and visual field indices in glaucoma,” British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 87, no. 9, pp. 1135–1141, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. N. Venugopal, G. Kummararaj, S. Kummararaj, and B. Bharathi, “Structural-functional dissociation in glaucoma: an attempt to end controversy,” Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 61, no. 9, pp. 532–533, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. C. Garudadri, S. Senthil, and H. Rao, “Evidence-based approach to glaucoma management,” Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. S5–S10, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. N. Medved and B. Cvenkel, “Diagnostic accuracy of the Moorfields Regression Analysis using the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph in glaucoma patients with visual field defects,” European Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 216–222, 2007. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. A. J. Tatham, R. N. Weinreb, and F. A. Medeiros, “Strategies for improving early detection of glaucoma: the combined structure-function index,” Clinical Ophthalmology, vol. 8, pp. 611–621, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. G. Vizzeri, S. Kjaergaard, H. Rao, and L. Zangwill, “Role of imaging in glaucoma diagnosis and follow-up,” Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. S59–S68, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. D. S. Greenfield, “Optic nerve and retinal nerve fiber layer analyzers in glaucoma,” Current Opinion in Ophthalmology, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 68–76, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. P. Sharma, P. A. Sample, L. M. Zangwill, and J. S. Schuman, “Diagnostic tools for glaucoma detection and management,” Survey of Ophthalmology, vol. 53, no. 6, supplement 1, pp. S17–S32, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. S. C. Lin, K. Singh, H. D. Jampel et al., “Optic nerve head and retinal nerve fiber layer analysis: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology,” Ophthalmology, vol. 114, no. 10, pp. 1937–1949, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  20. J. E. DeLeón-Ortega, S. N. Arthur, G. McGwin Jr., A. Xie, B. E. Monheit, and C. A. Girkin, “Discrimination between glaucomatous and nonglaucomatous eyes using quantitative imaging devices and subjective optic nerve head assessment,” Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 3374–3380, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. C. Sanchez-Galeana, C. Bowd, E. Z. Blumenthal, P. A. Gokhale, L. M. Zangwill, and R. N. Weinreb, “Using optical imaging summary data to detect glaucoma,” Ophthalmology, vol. 108, no. 10, pp. 1812–1818, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. A. Ferreras, A. B. Pajarín, V. Polo, J. M. Larrosa, L. E. Pablo, and F. M. Honrubia, “Diagnostic ability of Heidelberg Retina Tomograph 3 classifications: glaucoma probability score versus Moorfields regression analysis,” Ophthalmology, vol. 114, no. 11, pp. 1981.e1–1987.e1, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. P. R. Healey, A. J. Lee, T. Aung, T. Y. Wong, and P. Mitchell, “Diagnostic accuracy of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph for glaucoma: a population-based assessment,” Ophthalmology, vol. 117, no. 9, pp. 1667–1673, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. S. Andersson, A. Heijl, and B. Bengtsson, “Optic disc classification by the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph and by physicians with varying experience of glaucoma,” Eye, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 1401–1407, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. N. Harizman, J. R. Zelefsky, E. Ilitchev, C. Tello, R. Ritch, and J. M. Liebmann, “Detection of glaucoma using operator-dependent versus operator-independent classification in the Heidelberg retinal tomograph-III,” British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 90, no. 11, pp. 1390–1392, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. A. Coops, D. B. Henson, A. J. Kwartz, and P. H. Artes, “Automated analysis of Heidelberg retina tomograph optic disc images by glaucoma probability score,” Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, vol. 47, no. 12, pp. 5348–5355, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. M. Iester, F. S. Mikelberg, and S. M. Drance, “The effect of optic disc size on diagnostic precision with the Heidelberg retina tomograph,” Ophthalmology, vol. 104, no. 3, pp. 545–548, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. L. M. Zangwill, C. Bowd, C. C. Berry et al., “Discriminating between normal and glaucomatous eyes using the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph, GDx Nerve Fiber Analyzer, and Optical Coherence Tomograph,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 119, no. 7, pp. 985–993, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. M. Iester, V. Mariotti, F. Lanza, and G. Calabria, “The effect of contour line position on optic nerve head analysis by Heidelberg Retina Tomograph,” European Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 942–948, 2009. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. W. V. Hatch, J. G. Flanagan, D. E. Williams-Lyn, Y. M. Buys, T. Farra, and G. E. Trope, “Interobserver agreement of Heidelberg retina tomograph parameters,” Journal of Glaucoma, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 232–237, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. J. S. Schuman, G. Wollstein, T. Farra et al., “Comparison of optic nerve head measurements obtained by optical coherence tomography and confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 136, no. 2, pp. 504–512, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  32. S. Miglior, E. Albé, M. Guareschi, L. Rossetti, and N. Orzalesi, “Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility in the evaluation of optic disc stereometric parameters by Heidelberg Retina Tomograph,” Ophthalmology, vol. 109, no. 6, pp. 1072–1077, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. Y.-B. Liang, X. Liu, Y.-L. Ling, J.-J. Huang, and X.-P. Zheng, “Study of agreement of optic nerve head topography parameters,” Zhonghua yan ke za zhi, vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 471–475, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. L. Coman, M. Costescu, M. Alecu, and O. A. Coman, “Correlation between corneal thickness and optic disc morphology in normal tension glaucoma using modern technical analysis,” Romanian Journal of Morphology and Embryology, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 857–862, 2014. View at Google Scholar
  35. A. Ghanem and T. Mokbel, “Correlation of central corneal thickness and optic nerve head topography in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma,” Oman Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 75–80, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  36. M. O. Gordon, J. A. Beiser, J. D. Brandt et al., “The ocular hypertension treatment study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 120, no. 6, pp. 714–720, 2002, discussion 829-30. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. E. N. Vithana, T. Aung, C. C. Khor et al., “Collagen-related genes influence the glaucoma risk factor, central corneal thickness,” Human Molecular Genetics, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 649–658, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. T. Eysteinsson, F. Jonasson, H. Sasaki et al., “Central corneal thickness, radius of the corneal curvature and intraocular pressure in normal subjects using non-contact techniques: Reykjavik eye study,” Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 11–15, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. T. Toh, S. H. M. Liew, J. R. MacKinnon et al., “Central corneal thickness is highly heritable: the twin eye studies,” Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, vol. 46, no. 10, pp. 3718–3722, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. F. A. Medeiros, P. A. Sample, L. M. Zangwill, C. Bowd, M. Aihara, and R. N. Weinreb, “Corneal thickness as a risk factor for visual field loss in patients with preperimetric glaucomatous optic neuropathy,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 136, no. 5, pp. 805–813, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. L. W. Herndon, J. S. Weizer, and S. S. Stinnett, “Central corneal thickness as a risk factor for advanced glaucoma damage,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 122, no. 1, pp. 17–21, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. N. G. Congdon, A. T. Broman, K. Bandeen-Roche, D. Grover, and H. A. Quigley, “Central corneal thickness and corneal hysteresis associated with glaucoma damage,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 141, no. 5, pp. 868–875, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. M. C. Leske, A. Heijl, L. Hyman et al., “Predictors of long-term progression in the early manifest glaucoma trial,” Ophthalmology, vol. 114, no. 11, pp. 1965–1972, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. European Glaucoma Prevention Study (EGPS) Group, S. Miglior, N. Pfeiffer et al., “Predictive factors for open-angle glaucoma among patients with ocular hypertension in the European glaucoma prevention study,” Ophthalmology, vol. 114, no. 1, pp. 3–9, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  45. P. Tsikripis, D. Papaconstantinou, C. Koutsandrea, M. Apostolopoulos, and I. Georgalas, “The effect of prostaglandin analogs on the biomechanical properties and central thickness of the cornea of patients with open-angle glaucoma: a 3-year study on 108 eyes,” Drug Design, Development and Therapy, vol. 7, pp. 1149–1156, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. M. M. Whitacre, R. A. Stein, and K. Hassanein, “The effect of corneal thickness on applanation tonometry,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 115, no. 5, pp. 592–596, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. P.-A. Tonnu, T. Ho, T. Newson et al., “The influence of central corneal thickness and age on intraocular pressure measured by pneumotonometry, non-contact tonometry, the Tono-Pen XL, and Goldmann applanation tonometry,” British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 89, no. 7, pp. 851–854, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. M. Kohlhaas, A. G. Boehm, E. Spoerl, A. Pürsten, H. J. Grein, and L. E. Pillunat, “Effect of central corneal thickness, corneal curvature, and axial length on applanation tonometry,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 124, no. 4, pp. 471–476, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. F. Saenz-Frances, J. Garcia-Feijó, L. Jañez et al., “Comparing corneal variables in healthy subjects and patients with primary open-angle glaucoma,” Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 3683–3688, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. F. Saenz-Frances, L. Jañez, L. Borrego-Sanz et al., “Effect of corneal morphometry on dynamic contour and goldmann applanation tonometry,” Journal of Glaucoma, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 380–383, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. F. Saenz-Frances, E. Gonzalez-Pastor, L. Borrego-Sanz et al., “Comparing central corneal thickness measured using ultrasound pachymetry and the Pentacam in healthy subjects and patients with primary open-angle glaucoma,” Journal Francais d'Ophtalmologie, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 333–337, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  52. F. Sáenz-Francés, R. García-Catalán, M. Jerez-Fidalgo et al., “Comparison of Goldmann applanation and dynamic contour tonometry measurements: effects of corneal morphometry,” Archivos de la Sociedad Española de Oftalmología, vol. 86, no. 9, pp. 287–291, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. F. Saenz-Frances, L. Jañez, L. Borrego-Sanz et al., “Characterization of the thickness of different corneal zones in glaucoma: effect on dynamic contour, Goldmann and rebound tonometries,” Acta Ophthalmologica, vol. 91, no. 8, pp. e620–e627, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus