Diagnostic Ability of Scanning Laser Polarimetry with Enhanced Corneal Compensation in the Eye with Typical and Atypical Retadation Pattern.
- Author:
Chang Hwan LEE
1
;
Yong Hyuk KWON
;
Jae Wan CHOI
;
Michael S KOOK
Author Information
1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. mskook@amc.seoul.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Enhanced corneal compensation;
GDx-ECC;
GDx-VCC;
Scanning laser polarimetry;
Variable corneal compensation
- MeSH:
Compensation and Redress*;
Prospective Studies;
ROC Curve;
Scanning Laser Polarimetry*
- From:Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society
2007;48(3):392-398
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To investigate the relationship between the SLP-VCC parameters and the SLP-ECC parameters in the eyes with typical retardation pattern (TRP) and atypical retardation pattern (ARP), and the sensitivities and specificities of the SLP-VCC parameters and the SLP-ECC parameters in the eye with TRP and ARP. METHODS: In this prospective study, 72 eyes with TRP images (30 glaucomatous and 42 normal eyes) and 53 eyes with ARP images (28 glaucomatous and 25 normal eyes) were recruited. For each group, we analyzed relationship between each parameters of GDx-VCC and GDx-ECC and the diagnostic ability of GDx-ECC by using the ROC curve. RESULTS: In the eyes with TRP, TSNIT average was significantly lower by GDx-ECC than GDx-VCC in the control group. Inferior average was significantly higher by GDx-ECC than GDx-VCC in both glaucomatous and normal group. TSNIT standard deviation was significantly higher by GDx-ECC than GDx-VCC in both groups. NFI was significantly lower by GDx-ECC than GDx-VCC in both groups. TSS (typical scan score) was significantly higher by GDx-ECC than GDx-VCC in both groups. In the eyes with ARP, TSNIT average was significantly lower by GDx-ECC than GDx-VCC in both groups. Superior and Inferior average was not different between GDx-ECC and GDx-VCC. TSNIT standard deviation was significantly higher by GDx-ECC than GDx-VCC in both groups. NFI was not different between groups. TSS was significantly higher by GDx-ECC than GDx-VCC in both groups. Comparison of ROC curve for the SLP parameters revealed no difference between VCC and ECC. TSNIT standard deviation, however, showed relatively high value in GDx-ECC compared with GDx-VCC. CONCLUSIONS: GDx-ECC has comparable diagnostic ability in discriminating glaucomatous and normal eyes with GDx-VCC and TSNIT standard deviation by the GDx-ECC algorithm could be a useful parameter in discriminating glaucomatous and normal eyes.
