Longitudinal Stability of Optical Coherence Tomography Measures of Peripapillary Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Thickness, Macular Thickness, and Macular Volume in Control and Glaucomatous Eyes of Children

Background/Aims: To document baseline and longitudinal values for peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness, macular thickness, and macular volume as measured by optical coherence tomography(OCT) in glaucomatous and control eyes of children, followed prospectively for a mean of 2.4 years (range 0.5-5.3 years). Methods: OCT measurements (Fast RNFL 3.4 Thickness, Fast RNFL Map, and Fast Macular Thickness Map protocols; StratusOCT, Carl-Zeiss-Meditech, Dublin,CA) were obtained at baseline and on follow-up in 27 control and 19 glaucoma participants at the Duke University Eye Center Pediatric Clinic. Longitudinal changes were compared between groups with a two-sample-t-test and multiple linear regression analysis of covariance model adjusting for age, race, and baseline refractive error. Results: Eyes with glaucoma exhibited reduced baseline macular thickness, macular volume, and RNFL thickness, and increased myopia, compared to control eyes (eg. macular volume 6.54 vs. 7.03 mm3, p=0.006; RNFL 3.4 thickness 87.8 vs. 110.6μm, p=0.02). All OCT parameters studied showed minimal change over time, and rates of change were similar between groups. Conclusion: Baseline differences and longitudinal stability of OCT parameters were seen in normal and clinically stable glaucomatous eyes of children. These findings support continued study of OCT as an easily performed clinical adjunct in evaluation and management of children with glaucoma.Master of Public Healt

Outcomes Following Implantation of Two Second-Generation Trabecular Micro-Bypass Stents in Patients with Open-Angle Glaucoma on One Medication: 18-Month Follow-Up

<p><strong>Article full text</strong></p> <p><br> The full text of this article can be found <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12325-016-0420-8"><b>here</b>.</a><br> <br> <strong>Provide enhanced digital features for this article</strong><br> If you are an author of this publication and would like to provide additional enhanced digital features for your article then please contact <u>[email protected]</u>.<br> <br> The journal offers a range of additional features designed to increase visibility and readership. All features will be thoroughly peer reviewed to ensure the content is of the highest scientific standard and all features are marked as ‘peer reviewed’ to ensure readers are aware that the content has been reviewed to the same level as the articles they are being presented alongside. Moreover, all sponsorship and disclosure information is included to provide complete transparency and adherence to good publication practices. This ensures that however the content is reached the reader has a full understanding of its origin. No fees are charged for hosting additional open access content.<br> <br> Other enhanced features include, but are not limited to:<br> • Slide decks<br> • Videos and animations<br> • Audio abstracts<br> • Audio slides<u></u></p

Prospective Evaluation of Two iStent® Trabecular Stents, One iStent Supra® Suprachoroidal Stent, and Postoperative Prostaglandin in Refractory Glaucoma: Four-Year Outcomes

<p><b>Article full text</b></p><p><br></p><p>The full text of this article can be found here<b>.</b> <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12325-018-0666-4">https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12325-018-0666-4</a></p><p></p><p><br></p><p><b>Provide enhanced content for this article</b></p><p><br></p><p>If you are an author of this publication and would like to provide additional enhanced content for your article then please contact <a href="http://www.medengine.com/Redeem/”mailto:[email protected]”"><b>[email protected]</b></a>.</p><p><br></p><p>The journal offers a range of additional features designed to increase visibility and readership. All features will be thoroughly peer reviewed to ensure the content is of the highest scientific standard and all features are marked as ‘peer reviewed’ to ensure readers are aware that the content has been reviewed to the same level as the articles they are being presented alongside. Moreover, all sponsorship and disclosure information is included to provide complete transparency and adherence to good publication practices. This ensures that however the content is reached the reader has a full understanding of its origin. No fees are charged for hosting additional open access content.</p><p><br></p><p>Other enhanced features include, but are not limited to:</p><p><br></p><p>• Slide decks</p><p>• Videos and animations</p><p>• Audio abstracts</p><p> </p><p>• Audio slides</p><ul> </ul

Interobserver Agreement in Clinical Grading of Vitreous Haze Using Alternative Grading Scales

PURPOSE: To evaluate the reliability of clinical grading of vitreous haze using a new 9-step ordinal scale vs. the existing 6-step ordinal scale. DESIGN: Evaluation of Diagnostic Test (interobserver agreement study). PARTICIPANTS: 119 consecutive patients (204 uveitic eyes) presenting for uveitis subspecialty care on the study day at one of three large uveitis centers. METHODS: Five pairs of uveitis specialists clinically graded vitreous haze in the same eyes, one after the other using the same equipment, using the 6- and 9-step scales. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Agreement in vitreous haze grade between each pair of specialists was evaluated by the κ statistic (exact agreement and agreement within one or two grades). RESULTS: The scales correlated well (Spearman’s ρ=0.84). Exact agreement was modest using both the 6-step and 9-step scales: average κ=0.46 (range 0.28–0.81) and κ=0.40 (range 0.15–0.63), respectively. Within-1-grade agreement was slightly more favorable for the scale with fewer steps, but values were excellent for both scales: κ=0.75 (range 0.66–0.96) and κ=0.62 (range 0.38–0.87), respectively. Within-2-grade agreement for the 9-step scale also was excellent [κ=0.85 (range 0.79–0.92)]. Two-fold more cases were potentially clinical trial eligible based on the 9- than the 6-step scale (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Both scales are sufficiently reproducible using clinical grading for clinical and research use with the appropriate threshold (a ≥2 and ≥3 step differences for the 6-step and 9-step scales respectively). The results suggest that more eyes are likely to meet eligibility criteria for trials using the 9-step scale. The 9-step scale appears to have higher reproducibility with Reading Center grading than clinical grading, suggesting Reading Center grading may be preferable for clinical trials