Loading…
Optic nerve axonal loss using optical coherence tomography in 93 patients with multiple sclerosis and comparison with healthy subjects
Background: Axonal loss is thought to be a cause of persistent disability in multiple sclerosis (MS). Retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) imaging by optical coherence tomography (OCT) seems to be a non-invasive way of detecting optic nerve axonal loss following optic neuritis. Objective: To assess whet...
Saved in:
Published in: | Multiple sclerosis 2008-09, Vol.14, p.S109-S109 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Background: Axonal loss is thought to be a cause of persistent disability in multiple sclerosis (MS). Retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) imaging by optical coherence tomography (OCT) seems to be a non-invasive way of detecting optic nerve axonal loss following optic neuritis. Objective: To assess whether MS affects RNFL thickness. Methods: Prospective study including 93 patients. Two groups were studied: 1) patients with MS diagnosis 2) healthy subjects. RFNL was measured using OCT3. Kruskal Wallis tests were performed for comparison between RNFL and MS type. A correlation (Sperman coefficient) was computed between RNFL (firstly using the mean of both eyes and secondly the minimum value between both eyes) and Expanded Disability Status Score (EDSS) score. Finally, we compared RNFL between subjects with and without MS. A sub analysis was done, restricting the group with MS to those without previous acute optic neuritis. Results: Of the 93 (186 eyes) included MS patients, 47 had presented previous unilateral or bilateral acute optic neuritis (74 eyes) and 46 (92 eyes) were free of optic neuritis; median EDSS score was 4. There was no significant relationship between RNFL and EDSS score or MS type. Comparison was made with 15 healthy subjects. Average RNFL thickness for whole MS patients was 90 mu m (mean of both eyes) and 84 mu m (minimum value of both eyes) versus 104 mu m (mean of both eyes) and 101 mu m (minimum value of both eyes) for the healthy subjects (p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1352-4585 |