Peripapillary choroidal thickness in both eyes of glaucoma patients with unilateral visual field loss

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate whether peripapillary choroidal thickness in perimetrically affected eyes of primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) patients differs from that in perimetrically unaffected fellow eyes and eyes of healthy controls.

Design: Retrospective, comparative, cross-sectional study.

Methods: Thirty-one POAG patients with unilateral visual field loss and 31 healthy controls were included. Eyes were divided into 3 groups: 31 eyes in group A (eyes with visual field loss), 31 eyes in group B (perimetrically unaffected fellow eyes), and 31 eyes in group C (age- and sex-matched controls). A 360-degree 3.4-mm diameter peripapillary circle scan was performed for retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) assessment using enhanced depth imaging optical coherence tomography. The observer used the manual segmentation function to delineate the posterior edge of the retinal pigment epithelium and the sclerochoroidal interface. The RNFL thickness algorithm function was used to generate the choroidal thickness automatically in corresponding sectors. Statistical analysis was conducted to compare mean choroidal thickness and RNFL thickness among 3 groups and to correlate choroidal thickness with age, RNFL thickness, and visual field mean deviation.

Results: The global mean RNFL and choroidal thickness measurements were 62.3 ± 16.7 μm and 154.3 ± 69.7 μm in group A, 90.4 ± 12.2 μm and 154.7 ± 68.9 μm in group B, and 106.6 ± 9.2 μm and 154.2 ± 60.9 μm in group C. The RNFL thickness was significantly thinner in group A than in groups B and C globally and at all peripapillary locations (all P = .000). The RNFL thickness also was significantly thinner in group B than in group C (P = .000 to .021). However, choroidal thickness measurements did not differ among 3 groups globally or at any peripapillary location (P = .273 to .934, P = .757 to .994, and P = .808 to .975, respectively). Age was the only significant factor associated with peripapillary choroidal thickness in each group (r = -0.418 to -0.641, r = -0.569 to -0.690, and r = -0.689 to -0.827, respectively; all P < .05).

Conclusions: There was no significant difference in peripapillary choroidal thickness of POAG eyes with visual field loss compared with that of perimetrically unaffected fellow eyes and eyes of healthy controls, which does not support using peripapillary choroidal thickness as a clinical parameter in POAG diagnosis or management.