Abstract
Purpose
To compare the frequency doubling technology perimeter (FDT) with retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) photography as a tool for the early detection of glaucoma.
Methods
Ninety-eight eyes of 98 patients were evaluated over a period of 3 months. According to the results of RNFL photography and FDT, Patients were divided into four groups based on the results of RNFL photography and optical coherence tomography (OCT). A comparison of the RNFL thickness of each group was performed using the OCT results.
Results
RNFL thickness in the group with abnormal FDT and normal RNFL were significantly decreased from those in the group with normal FDT and RNFL photography at the 6, 7 and, 10 o’ clock area (p<0.05).
Conclusions
There were statistically significant differences in the RNFL thickness between the group with abnormal FDT and normal RNFL photography, and the group with normal FDT and RNFL photography within the limited areas. These results imply that FDT is more useful for the early detection of glaucoma than RNFL photography.
References
1. Sommer A, Miller NR, Pollack I, et al. The nerve fiber layer in the diagnosis of glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1977; 95:2149–56.
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
2. Sommer A, Katz J, Quigley HA, et al. Clinically detectable nerve fiber atrophy precedes the onset of glaucomatous field loss. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991; 109:77–83.
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
3. Tuulonen A, Lehtola J, Airaksinen PJ. Nerve fiber layer defects with normal visual fields. Do normal optic disc and normal visual field indicate absence of glaucomatous abnormality? Ophthalmology. 1993; 100:587–97.
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
4. Hood DC, Kardon RH. A framework for comparing structural and functional measures of glaucomatous damage. Prog Retin Eye Res. 2007; 26:688–710.
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
5. Han ES, Park KH, Kim TW, Kim DM. The detection of retinal nerve fiber layer defect by modification of non-mydriatic digital fundus photograph. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2006; 47:771–7.
6. Clement CI, Goldberg I, Graham S, Healey PR. Humphrey matrix frequency doubling perimetry for detection of visual field defects in open-angle glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009; 93:582–8.
7. Medeiros FA, Sample PA, Weinreb RN. Frequency doubling technology perimetry abnormalities as predictors of glaucomatous visual field loss. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004; 137:863–71.
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
8. Bayer AU, Erb C. Short wavelength automated perimetry, frequency doubling technology perimetry and pattern electro-retinography for prediction of progressive glaucomatous standard visual field defect. Ophthalmology. 2002; 109:1009–17.
9. Quigley HA, Reacher M, Strahlman E, et al. Quantitative grading of nerve fiber layer photographs. Ophthalmology. 1993; 100:1800–7.
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
![crossref](/image/icon/bnr_ref_cross.gif)
10. Sim JO, Park CK. Optic nerve head analysis obtained by optical coherence tomography for the diagnosis of glaucoma in Koreans. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2004; 45:1885–93.
11. Park SJ, Park KH, Yu YS, et al. Early detection of glaucoma with retinal nerve fiber layer photograph. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1998; 39:1002–8.
12. Kim TW, Zangwill LM, Bowd C, et al. Retinal nerve fiber layer damage as assessed by optical coherence tomography in eyes with a visual field defect detected by frequency doubling technology perimetry but not by standard automated perimetry. Ophthalmology. 2007; 114:1053–7.
Table 1.
Patient demographics and clinical characteristics of each group
Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Number | 33 | 23 | 36 | |
Gender (Male/Female) | 21/12 | 14/9 | 14/22 | 0.183‡ |
Age | 57.6±10.4 | 60.1±9.2 | 66.1±8.3 | 0.001§ |
Spherical equivalent (D) | −0.76±1.09 | −0.42±1.43 | 0.81±1.61 | 0.782§ |
BCVAП (LogMar) | 0.07±0.02 | 0.09±0.04 | 0.11±0.04 | 0.119§ |
Intraocular pressure (mmHg) | 12.67±1.45 | 13.43±1.34 | 13.75±2.67 | 0.079§ |
Central corneal thickness (μm) | 548.97±22.11 | 544.96±22.82 | 551.00±24.75 | 0.625§ |
SAP# MD* (dB) | −1.03±1.58 | −2.13±1.39 | −6.68±2.74 | 0.001§ |
SAP# PSD† (dB) | 1.76±0.92 | 2.99±1.67 | 7.10±2.65 | 0.001§ |
FDT** MD* (dB) | −2.43±1.75 | −3.42±1.27 | −7.04±4.06 | 0.001§ |
FDT** PSD† (dB) | 1.94±1.27 | 3.74±0.99 | 6.65±2.98 | 0.001§ |
Table 2.
Mean retinal nerve fiber layer thickness measured by optical coherence tomography
Table 3.
Proportion of eyes with RNFL thickness confidence interval <5% in group 1 and group 2