title: Analysis of neuroretinal rim distribution and vascular pattern in eyes with presumed large physiological cupping: a comparative study.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  To investigate possible differences in neuroretinal rim distribution, vascular pattern, and peripapillary region appearance between eyes with presumed large physiological optic disc cupping (pLPC) and eyes with minimal optic disc excavation.
  
  
  METHODS
  We prospectively enrolled consecutive subjects with pLPC and individuals with minimal excavation (optic disc excavation within normal limits; control group). All eyes had normal visual fields and untreated intraocular pressure (IOP) <21 mmHg. Eyes with pLPC required vertical cup-to-disc ratio (VCDR) ≥ 0.6 and ≥ 30 months of follow-up with no evidence of glaucomatous neuropathy. For controls, VCDR was limited to ≤ 0.5. We compared ocular signs and characteristics related to the neuroretinal rim distribution, vascular pattern, peripapillary region appearance and disc size between groups. Whenever both eyes were eligible, one was randomly selected for analysis.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of 74 patients (mean age, 45.6 ± 14.9 years) with pLPC and 45 controls (mean age, 44.8 ± 11.6 years) were enrolled (p = 0.76). Median disc size and VCDR was significantly larger in eyes with pLPC compared to controls (p < 0.01). The proportion of eyes with violation of the ISNT rule, laminar dot sign, nasal shifting of the central vessels, nasal excavation and baring of circumlinear vessel was significantly greater in the eyes with pLPC compared to controls (p < 0.01). There were no significant differences regarding the proportions of eyes with peripapillary atrophy between groups (p < 0.09). Finally, disc size was significantly associated with VCDR (r(2) = 0.47, p < 0.01), with an increase of 0.21 in VCDR for each 1 mm(2) in disc area.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Compared to normal controls, eyes with pLPC may present a higher proportion of optic nerve head findings frequently observed in glaucomatous eyes. This seems to be explained in part by the larger discs found in these eyes. We believe care should be taken while classifying them as glaucomatous or not based solely on these characteristics.
authors.forename: Flavio S S
authors.initials: FS
authors.lastname: Lopes
authors.affiliation: Department of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Road, Jacksonville, FL, USA. dorairaj.syril@mayo.edu.
authors.forename: Syril
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Dorairaj
authors.forename: Daniela L M
authors.initials: DL
authors.lastname: Junqueira
authors.forename: Rafael L
authors.initials: RL
authors.lastname: Furlanetto
authors.forename: Luis Gustavo
authors.initials: LG
authors.lastname: Biteli
authors.forename: Tiago Santos
authors.initials: TS
authors.lastname: Prata
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D005902:Glaucoma, Open-Angle / Q000150:complications / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000503:physiopathology; D006801:Humans; D007429:Intraocular Pressure / Q000502:physiology*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009898:Optic Disk / Q000473:pathology*; D009901:Optic Nerve Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000209:etiology / Q000503:physiopathology; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012165:Retinal Ganglion Cells / Q000473:pathology*; D012720:Severity of Illness Index; D014065:Tonometry, Ocular; D058609:Visual Field Tests; D014794:Visual Fields / Q000502:physiology*