» Articles » PMID: 21974913

Visual Field Progression Outcomes in Glaucoma Subtypes

Overview
Journal Acta Ophthalmol
Specialty Ophthalmology
Date 2011 Oct 7
PMID 21974913
Citations 20
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To determine whether glaucoma subtype is an independent risk factor for visual field (VF) progression.

Methods: We reviewed the charts of glaucoma suspects and glaucoma patients seen in a referral practice between 1999 and 2009. Automated pointwise linear regression analysis determined the rates of VF change. A progression endpoint was determined when two or more adjacent test locations in the same hemifield showed a threshold sensitivity decline at a rate of ≥1.0 dB/year with p < 0.01.

Results: We included 841 eyes (841 patients; mean age, 64.1 ± 12.6 years; mean number of VF tests, 10.8 ± 2.8; mean follow-up, 6.4 ± 1.7 years). The glaucomatous group consisted of angle-closure glaucoma (76 eyes), juvenile primary open-angle glaucoma (37 eyes), normal-tension glaucoma (81 eyes), pigmentary glaucoma (34 eyes), primary open-angle glaucoma (275 eyes) and exfoliative glaucoma (XFG, 84 eyes). Normal-tension glaucoma eyes were more likely to present with beta-zone parapapillary atrophy and disc haemorrhage (p < 0.01). Exfoliative glaucoma eyes had the fastest rates of global VF change (-0.65 dB/year), as well as the highest mean, fluctuation, and peak intraocular pressure during follow-up (16.5, 3.0 and 22.0 mmHg, respectively) and reached a progression endpoint more frequently (40%). After adjusting for all covariates, including the glaucoma phenotype, there was no difference among groups regarding global rates of VF change and the risk of reaching a progression endpoint.

Conclusions: Despite different clinical features, epidemiology and genetics, glaucoma phenotype is not an independent risk factor for VF progression. Rather, variations in well-known, reported risk factors remain important disease parameters that affect progression.

Citing Articles

A retrospective evaluation of the clinical monitoring period prior to referral for glaucoma surgery with the emphasis on visual field test results.

Hougaard J, Bengtsson B BMC Ophthalmol. 2025; 25(1):120.

PMID: 40069667 PMC: 11895331. DOI: 10.1186/s12886-025-03925-z.


Estimating functions for visual field progression in newly diagnosed exfoliation glaucoma patients in Sweden.

Ayala M Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):20979.

PMID: 38017090 PMC: 10684494. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-48336-6.


The association between intraocular pressure dynamics during dark-room prone testing and intraocular pressure over a relatively long-term follow-up period in primary open-glaucoma patients.

Sato M, Kiyota N, Yabana T, Maekawa S, Tsuda S, Omodaka K Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2023; 262(3):949-956.

PMID: 37864634 PMC: 10907413. DOI: 10.1007/s00417-023-06257-0.


Visual Field Progression After Glaucoma Surgery in Pseudoexfoliation versus Primary Glaucoma.

Rao A, DCruz R Clin Ophthalmol. 2023; 17:3037-3045.

PMID: 37850050 PMC: 10578175. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S431723.


Multi-Contrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Visual White Matter Pathways in Patients With Glaucoma.

Ogawa S, Takemura H, Horiguchi H, Miyazaki A, Matsumoto K, Masuda Y Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2022; 63(2):29.

PMID: 35201263 PMC: 8883150. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.63.2.29.