Objective Neuroretinal rim assessment based on the clinical optic disc margin (DM) lacks a sound anatomic basis for 2 reasons: (1) The DM is not reliable as the outer border of rim tissue because of clinically and photographically invisible extensions of Bruch’s membrane (BM) inside the DM and (2) nonaccountability of rim tissue orientation in the optic nerve head (ONH). The BM opening-minimum rim width (BMO-MRW) is a parameter that quantifies the rim from its true anatomic outer border, BMO, and accounts for its variable orientation. We report the diagnostic capability of BMO-MRW. Design Case control. Participants Patients with open-angle glaucoma (n = 107) and healthy controls (n = 48). Methods Spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) with 24 radial and 1 circumpapillary B-scans, centered on the ONH, and confocal scanning laser tomography (CSLT) were performed. The internal limiting membrane (ILM) and BMO were manually segmented in each radial B-scan. Three SD-OCT parameters were computed globally and sectorally: (1) circumpapillary retinal nerve fiber layer thickness (RNFLT); (2) BMO-horizontal rim width (BMO-HRW), the distance between BMO and ILM in the BMO reference plane; and (3) BMO-MRW, the minimum distance between BMO and ILM. Moorfields Regression Analysis (MRA) with CLST was performed globally and sectorally to yield MRA1 and MRA2, where “borderline” was classified as normal and abnormal, respectively. Main Outcome Measures Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs) for positive and negative test results (LR+/LR−). Results The median (interquartile range) age and mean deviation of patients and controls were 69.9 (64.3–76.9) and 65.0 (58.1–74.3) years and −3.92 (−7.87 to −1.62) and 0.33 (−0.32 to 0.98) dB, respectively. Globally, BMO-MRW yielded better diagnostic performance than the other parameters. At 95% specificity, the sensitivity of RNFLT, BMO-HRW, and BMO-MRW was 70%, 51%, and 81%, respectively. The corresponding LR+/LR− was 14.0/0.3, 10.2/0.5, and 16.2/0.2. Sectorally, at 95% specificity, the sensitivity of RNFLT ranged from 31% to 59%, of BMO-HRW ranged from 35% to 64%, and of BMO-MRW ranged from 54% to 79%. Globally and in all sectors, BMO-MRW performed better than MRA1 or MRA2. Conclusions The higher sensitivity at 95% specificity in early glaucoma of BMO-MRW compared with current BMO methods is significant, indicating a new structural marker for the detection and risk profiling of glaucoma.

No abstract

The test-retest variability of FDT2 is uniform over the measurement range of the instrument. These properties may provide advantages for the monitoring of patients with glaucoma that should be investigated in longitudinal studies.

Purpose. To compare the properties of the visual field index (VFI) to those of mean deviation (MD) in patients with glaucoma. Methods. MD and VFI were calculated in data obtained from an ongoing longitudinal study in which patients with glaucoma (N = 109, 204 eyes) were observed for 9.8 years (median, 21 tests) with static automated perimetry. MD and VFI were compared in one test of each eye, and a subset of 30 tests were selected to compare the VFI with the judgments of eight experts who judged the percentage of the remaining visual field. In series of tests obtained over time, rates of change, statistical significance, evidence of nonlinearity, and variability were compared between both indices. Results. In single tests, MD and VFI were closely related (r = 0.88, P < 0.001). The relationship between both indices appeared linear, except in visual fields with MDs better than -5.0 dB where 29 (22%) of 129 eyes exhibited a ceiling effect (VFI = 100%). Based on this relationship, the predicted VFIs for visual fields with MDs of -5, -10, and -15 dB were 91%, 76%, and 60%, respectively. The percentage of remaining visual field suggested by the VFI exceeded the range of the experts' subjective judgments in 16 (53%) of 30 eyes. In series of tests obtained over time, rates of change with the two indices were closely related (r = 0.79, P < 0.001), and statistically significant reductions over time (P < 0.05) occurred in a similar number of eyes (92 [45%] with MD, and 87 [43%] with VFI). Of the 105 eyes with statistically significant (P < 0.05) negative trend in either MD or VFI, 74 (70%) showed such trends with both indices (κ = 0.69). The variability of MD and VFI increased with damage, and there was no evidence that change over time was more linear with VFI than with MD. Conclusions. The VFI provides a simple and understandable metric of visual field damage, but its estimates of remaining visual field were more optimistic than those of the experts. Rates of change over time with both indices were closely related, but the reliance of the VFI on pattern deviation probability maps caused a ceiling effect that may have reduced its sensitivity to change in eyes with early damage. In this group of patients there was no evidence to suggest that the VFI is either superior or inferior to the MD as a summary measure of visual field damage.

The peripapillary choroid of patients with glaucoma who have sclerotic optic disc damage was approximately 25% to 30% thinner compared with that in patients with focal and diffuse optic disc damage and with that in healthy controls. The role of the choroid in the pathophysiology of sclerotic glaucomatous optic disc damage needs further investigation.