Indian Journal of Ophthalmology (Feb 2024)

Comparison of diagnostic capability of macular ganglion cell complex vs retinal fiber layer thickness in primary open angle glaucoma patients of Indian origin

  • Arpit Srivastava,
  • Vikas Sharma,
  • Gaurav Kapoor,
  • V K B Muthu Kamal,
  • Vinod K Baranwal,
  • Ankita Singh

DOI
https://doi.org/10.4103/IJO.IJO_1768_23
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 72, no. Suppl 4
pp. S628 – S633

Abstract

Read online

Purpose: Comparison of diagnostic capability of macular ganglion cell complex thickness vs. retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness in patients of primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). Settings and Design: This cross-sectional observational study was carried out between June 2021 and October 2022 at a tertiary care hospital in North India. Methods: A total of 118 eyes were included in the study with 30 control and the rest 88 eyes with POAG were divided into three groups based on visual field loss Group 1 (30 eyes): early field loss with mean deviation (MD) −12 dB. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans to measure RNFL loss and ganglion cell inferior plexiform layer (GCIPL) loss were taken for each patient. Statistical Analysis Used: Categorical variables were analyzed using either the Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test. A receiver operating characteristics analysis was calculated to determine optimal cut-off values of superior, inferior, and average GCIPL and RNFL for determining the severity of field loss as compared to controls (30 normal eyes). Results: In the mild field loss group the sensitivity of superior, inferior, and average GCIPL was 86.7, 96.7, and 96.7%, respectively. Similarly, the specificity was 96.7, 93.3, and 100%, respectively. In the same group, the sensitivity of superior, inferior, and average RNFL was 70, 93, and 66%, respectively. Similarly, the specificity was 46.7, 83.3, and 70%, respectively. In the moderate and severe groups, the results were comparable. Conclusion: The sensitivity and specificity of GCIPL loss are significantly better than that of RNFL parameters in the mild field loss group.

Keywords