title: Optic disc size and progression of visual field damage in patients with normal-tension glaucoma.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Our goal was to evaluate the influence of optic disc size on the progression of visual field damage in patients with normal-tension glaucoma (NTG).
  
  
  METHODS
  Eighty-two eyes of 82 NTG patients who had been receiving topical antiglaucoma medications and followed-up for more than 4 years were enrolled in this study. The patients were allocated to two groups, according to the mean size of their optic discs. The data were analyzed using regression analysis, based on the Cox proportional hazard model.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The probability of visual field stability was significantly lower in eyes with large discs than in those with small discs (log rank test, P = 0.007). Progression of visual field damage was significantly associated with the optic disc area (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.812, P = 0.018), occurrence of disc hemorrhage (HR: 2.116, P = 0.028), and intraocular pressure reduction ratio (HR: 0.957, P = 0.014).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The optic disc area correlates with progression of visual field damage in patients with NTG.
authors: Department of Ophthalmology, Division of Visual Science, Nihon University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
authors: Fukuko
authors: F
authors: Hayamizu
authors: Yoshio
authors: Y
authors: Yamazaki
authors: Takako
authors: T
authors: Nakagami
authors: Kenji
authors: K
authors: Mizuki
keywords: Cox proportional hazards model; Kaplan–Meier life-table analysis; disc hemorrhage; disc size; intraocular pressure
references: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1994 May;232(5):290-6
references: 8045438
references: Ophthalmology. 1991 May;98(5):675-80
references: 2062501
references: Jpn J Ophthalmol. 1999 Sep-Oct;43(5):392-7
references: 10580661
references: J Glaucoma. 2011 Mar;20(3):189-95
references: 20577114
references: Am J Ophthalmol. 1998 Oct;126(4):487-97
references: 9780093
references: Br J Ophthalmol. 2008 Apr;92(4):569-73
references: 18211935
references: Am J Ophthalmol. 2006 Jul;142(1):168-70
references: 16815273
references: Br J Ophthalmol. 1995 Dec;79(12):1102-5
references: 8562544
references: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004 Aug;45(8):2613-8
references: 15277484
references: Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2005 Nov-Dec;49(6):469-476
references: 16365792
references: Am J Ophthalmol. 2003 Feb;135(2):226-8
references: 12566030
references: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000 Sep;41(10):2991-3000
references: 10967056
references: Am J Ophthalmol. 1999 Oct;128(4):515-7
references: 10577600
references: Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2006 Jan-Feb;50(1):38-43
references: 16453186
references: J Glaucoma. 1999 Dec;8(6):347-52
references: 10604292
references: Ophthalmology. 2012 Jan;119(1):10-20
references: 22015382
references: Arch Ophthalmol. 1989 Jun;107(6):836-9
references: 2730402
references: Am J Ophthalmol. 2001 Jun;131(6):699-708
references: 11384564
references: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007 Jul;48(7):3178-83
references: 17591887
references: Am J Ophthalmol. 1997 Sep;124(3):287-95
references: 9439354
references: Am J Ophthalmol. 2000 Jun;129(6):707-14
references: 10926977
references: Arch Ophthalmol. 2005 Sep;123(9):1188-97
references: 16157798
references: Arch Ophthalmol. 1992 Feb;110(2):211-3
references: 1736870
references: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1992;230(6):552-60
references: 1427140