Diagnostic Accuracies of Bruch Membrane Opening-minimum Rim Width and Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness in Glaucoma.
10.3341/jkos.2017.58.7.836
- Author:
So Hee KIM
1
;
Keun Heung PARK
;
Ji Woong LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Ophthalmology, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea. glaucoma@pnu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Bruch membrane opening-minimum rim width;
Diagnostic capability;
Peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer thickness;
Spectral-domain optical coherence tomography
- MeSH:
Area Under Curve;
Bruch Membrane*;
Glaucoma*;
Glaucoma, Open-Angle;
Membranes;
Nerve Fibers*;
Retinaldehyde*;
ROC Curve;
Tomography, Optical Coherence
- From:Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society
2017;58(7):836-845
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic capability of Bruch membrane opening-minimum rim width (BMO-MRW) and peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness for the detection of primary open angle glaucoma. METHODS: Spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) with 24 radial and 1 peripapillary B-scans centered on the Bruch membrane opening (BMO) was performed. Two SD-OCT parameters were computed globally and sectorally: (1) BMO-MRW, the minimum distance between BMO and internal limiting membrane; and (2) peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness. The diagnostic performance of BMO-MRW and RNFL thickness were compared with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis globally and sectorally. Areas under the ROC (AUC) were calculated and compared. RESULTS: One hundred fourteen eyes (52 healthy, 62 glaucomatous) of 114 participants were included. In global analyses, the performance of BMO-MRW was similar to that of RNFL thickness (AUC 0.95 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.91-0.99], and 0.95 [95% CI, 0.91-0.99], respectively, p=0.93). In sectoral analyses, the pair-wise comparison among the ROC curves showed no statistical difference for all sectors except for the superotemporal, superonasal, and nasal sectors, which had significantly larger AUCs in BMO-MRW compared to RNFL thickness (p=0.03, p<0.001, and p=0.03, respectively). The parameter with the largest AUC was the inferotemporal sector for both BMO-MRW and RNFL thickness (AUC 0.98 [95% CI, 0.96-1.00], and 0.98 [95% CI, 0.96-1.00], respectively, p=0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Global BMO-MRW performed as well as global RNFL thickness for detection of glaucoma. In superotemporal, superonasal and nasal sectors, regional BMO-MRW performed better than regional RNFL thickness.
