Glaucoma Specialist Detection of Optical Coherence Tomography Suspicious Rim Tissue in Glaucoma and Glaucoma Suspect Eyes.

PURPOSE: To assess glaucoma specialists' detection of optic nerve head (ONH) rim tissue that is thin by optical coherence tomography (OCT) criteria. DESIGN: Reliability analysis. METHODS: Five clinicians marked the disc margin (DM) and rim margin (RM) on stereophotographs of 151 glaucoma or glaucoma suspect eyes obtained within 3 months of OCT imaging. The photo and OCT infrared image for each eye were co-localized and regionalized into 12 sectors relative to the axis between the Bruch membrane opening (BMO) centroid and the fovea. For each clinician, the distance from BMO centroid to their DM (DM radius) and RM (RM radius) was used to generate sectoral rim width (RW) (DM radius-RM radius) and cup-to-disc ratio (CDR) (RM radius/DM radius) estimates. OCT minimum rim width (MRW) was determined by sector. Among all eyes, for each OCT MRW suspicious sector (<5% of OCT normative database), we determined each clinician's detection (clinician CDR ≥ 0.7). RESULTS: Clinicians most commonly failed to detect OCT suspicious rim tissue in the nasal sectors. Among 502 sectors with suspicious OCT MRW, all 5 clinicians rated CDR ≥ 0.7 in only 29.5% and all 5 clinicians rated CDR < 0.7 in 21%. OCT suspicious rim thickness was most common (32% of eyes) in the nasal and inferior sectors. MRW vs clinician RW discordance was greatest nasally, while BMO vs clinician DM discordance was greatest temporally. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians most commonly failed to detect OCT suspicious rim thickness nasally where suspicious rim tissues were also most common.

Glaucoma Specialist Optic Disc Margin, Rim Margin, and Rim Width Discordance in Glaucoma and Glaucoma Suspect Eyes.

PURPOSE: To quantify the variability of 5 glaucoma specialists' optic disc margin (DM), rim margin (RM), and rim width (RW) estimates. DESIGN: Inter-observer reliability analysis. METHODS: Clinicians viewed stereo-photographs from 214 subjects with glaucoma or ocular hypertension and digitally marked the DM and RM. For each photograph, the centroid of each clinician's DM was calculated, and an averaged DMcentroid was determined. The axis between the DMcentroid and the fovea was used to establish 12 30-degree sectors. Measurements from the DMcentroid to each clinician's DM (DMradius) and RM (RMradius) were used to generate a RW (DMradius-RMradius) and cup-to-disc ratio (CDR) (RMradius/DMradius) by sector. Parameter means, standard deviations, and coefficient of variations (COVs) were calculated across all clinicians for each eye. Parameter means for each clinician, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), were calculated across all eyes by sector. RESULTS: Among all eyes, the median COV by sector ranged from 3% to 5% for DMradius, 20% to 25% for RMradius, and 26% to 30% for RW. Sectoral ICCs for CDR ranged from 0.566 to 0.668. Sectors suspicious for rim thinning by 1 clinician were frequently overlooked by others. Among 1724 sectors in which at least 1 clinician was suspicious for rim thinning (CDR ≥ 0.7), all 5 clinicians' CDRs were ≥ 0.7 in only 499 (29%), and 2 of the 5 clinicians failed to detect rim thinning (CDR < 0.7) in 442 (26%). CONCLUSION: In this study, glaucoma specialist RM, DM, and RW discordance was frequent and substantial, even in sectors that were suspicious for rim thinning.

Failed glaucoma drainage implant: long-term outcomes of a second glaucoma drainage device versus cyclophotocoagulation.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate long-term efficacy of a second glaucoma drainage device (GDD) versus cyclophotocoagulation (CPC) after failure of primary drainage implant. METHODS: This is a non-randomised, retrospective cohort study. A chart review was conducted of patients who underwent GDD surgery between July 1986 and November 2012 requiring further glaucoma procedures for intraocular pressure (IOP) control. An additional GDD was placed in 15 eyes, while 32 eyes underwent CPC. The main outcome measurement was IOP control and/or time to failure of secondary intervention (IOP >18 mm Hg on two sequential measurements). RESULTS: Mean follow-up after the second procedure was 63±65.8 months (range 6-254 months) in the CPC group and 132±91.8 months (range 12-254 months) in the GDD group. Thirty-four per cent (11/32 eyes) undergoing CPC later required further treatment at a mean of 13.6±10.7 months with 10/11(91%) of additional interventions occurring within 2 years. Despite an initially high success rate for IOP control in the first 5 years, eventually 60% (9/15 eyes) that underwent a second tube required additional treatment at a mean of 73.4 months with only 2/9(22%) requiring this within the first 2 years. The risk of visual acuity worsening by 2 Snellen lines or more at 12 months was 5/14 for the GDD group (36%) and 4/23(17%) for the CPC group. CONCLUSIONS: After failure of an initial drainage implant to control IOP, a sequential tube had a high initial rate of success but a relatively high likelihood of long-term failure, generally after 6 years. Eyes that received CPC tended to fail earlier, often within the first year, but had relatively few late failures.