Global Search

Search articles, concepts, and chapters

Invest Ophthalmol Vis SciApril 202019 citations

Comparison of Lamina Cribrosa Morphology in Eyes with Ocular Hypertension and Normal-Tension Glaucoma.

Kim Ji-Ah, Kim Tae-Woo, Lee Eun Ji, Girard Michaël J A, Mari Jean Martial


AI Summary

NTG eyes showed thinner, more curved lamina cribrosa than healthy/OHT eyes, which had thicker, less curved lamina. This suggests distinct structural differences in glaucoma types.

Abstract

Purpose

To characterize differences in the lamina cribrosa (LC) morphology between healthy, ocular hypertension (OHT), and naive normal-tension glaucoma (NTG) eyes.

Methods

Each group consisted of 80 eyes of 80 participants who were matched for age, sex, and axial length. The participants underwent enhanced-depth-imaging volume scanning of the optic nerve head using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. The lamina cribrosa curvature index (LCCI) and lamina cribrosa thickness (LCT) were measured in horizontal B-scan images spaced equidistantly across the vertical diameter of the optic disc.

Results

The LCCIs in all seven planes were smaller in both OHT and healthy eyes than in NTG eyes (all P < 0.001), and did not differ significantly between the OHT and healthy eyes. The LCTs in all three planes were greatest in OHT eyes followed by healthy and then NTG eyes (all P < 0.001). Overall, the larger LCCI was associated with smaller LCT (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

The LC was thin and steeply curved in NTG eyes than in healthy and OHT eyes. In OHT eyes, the LC was thick, and its curvature was comparable to healthy eyes. Longitudinal studies are required to examine whether the straight and thickened LCs in OHT eyes precede the onset of OHT or are a protective response to elevated intraocular pressure.


MeSH Terms

AdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansIntraocular PressureLow Tension GlaucomaMaleMiddle AgedNerve FibersOcular HypertensionOptic DiskRetinal Ganglion CellsTonometry, OcularVisual AcuityVisual Field TestsVisual Fields

Key Concepts6

The lamina cribrosa curvature index (LCCI) in all seven planes was smaller in both ocular hypertension (OHT) eyes and healthy eyes than in normal-tension glaucoma (NTG) eyes (all P < 0.001) in a cross-sectional study of 80 OHT eyes, 80 healthy eyes, and 80 NTG eyes.

DiagnosisCross-sectionalCross-sectional Studyn=80 OHT eyes, 80 healthy eyes, 80 NTG …Ch5Ch11

The lamina cribrosa curvature index (LCCI) did not differ significantly between ocular hypertension (OHT) eyes and healthy eyes in a cross-sectional study of 80 OHT eyes, 80 healthy eyes, and 80 normal-tension glaucoma (NTG) eyes.

DiagnosisCross-sectionalCross-sectional Studyn=80 OHT eyes, 80 healthy eyes, 80 NTG …Ch5Ch11

The lamina cribrosa thickness (LCT) in all three planes was greatest in ocular hypertension (OHT) eyes, followed by healthy eyes, and then normal-tension glaucoma (NTG) eyes (all P < 0.001) in a cross-sectional study of 80 OHT eyes, 80 healthy eyes, and 80 NTG eyes.

DiagnosisCross-sectionalCross-sectional Studyn=80 OHT eyes, 80 healthy eyes, 80 NTG …Ch5Ch11

A larger lamina cribrosa curvature index (LCCI) was associated with a smaller lamina cribrosa thickness (LCT) (P < 0.001) in a cross-sectional study of 80 ocular hypertension eyes, 80 healthy eyes, and 80 normal-tension glaucoma eyes.

MechanismCross-sectionalCross-sectional Studyn=80 OHT eyes, 80 healthy eyes, 80 NTG …Ch5

The lamina cribrosa was thin and steeply curved in normal-tension glaucoma (NTG) eyes compared to healthy eyes and ocular hypertension (OHT) eyes in a cross-sectional study of 80 OHT eyes, 80 healthy eyes, and 80 NTG eyes.

DiagnosisCross-sectionalCross-sectional Studyn=80 OHT eyes, 80 healthy eyes, 80 NTG …Ch5Ch11

In ocular hypertension (OHT) eyes, the lamina cribrosa was thick, and its curvature was comparable to healthy eyes in a cross-sectional study of 80 OHT eyes, 80 healthy eyes, and 80 normal-tension glaucoma eyes.

DiagnosisCross-sectionalCross-sectional Studyn=80 OHT eyes, 80 healthy eyes, 80 NTG …Ch5Ch11

Is this article assigned to the wrong chapter(s)? Let us know.