Jati , Krisna Dwi Purnomo
Unknown Affiliation

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

The Correlation between Retinal Nerve Fibre Layer Thickness, Optic Nerve Head Parameter, and Related Risk Factor in Glaucoma Patient: Oral Presentation - Observational Study - Resident Wardhana, Arif Kusuma; Ekantini, Retno; Gani, Tatang Talka; Jati , Krisna Dwi Purnomo
Majalah Oftalmologi Indonesia Vol 49 No S2 (2023): Supplement Edition
Publisher : The Indonesian Ophthalmologists Association (IOA, Perhimpunan Dokter Spesialis Mata Indonesia (Perdami))

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.35749/87d2ce77

Abstract

Introduction & ObjectivesTo investigate the correlation between retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) thickness and the past RNFLthickness, related risk factor (gender, age, myopia, intraocular pressure (IOP), blood pressure). AndRNFL parameter (symmetricity and four quadrants RNFL thickness) and optic nerve head parameter(rim area and vertical cup disc ratio) Methods39 right eyes of both sex and various age underwent examination including IOP measurement,subjective refraction for determining refractive error, and optical coherence tomography (OCT) forRNFL and ONH analysis. The follow up were done after one year. ResultsThe RNFL symmetricity, superior, nasal, inferior, temporal RNFL thickness showed significancecorrelation with RNFL thickness (R= 0.487, p= 0.002), (R= 0.915, R= 0.749, R= 0.897, R= 0.702with p= <0.001), but not showed significance correlation with rim area and vertical cup disc ratio(R= 0.175, p= 0.286) and (R= -0.093, p= 0.574). A significance correlation also showed withincreasing age, gender, and systolic blood pressure (R= -0.387, p= 0.015), (R= 0.441, p= 0.005) and(R= -0.418, p= 0.008). But not showed significance correlation with history of past RNFL thickness,refractive error, IOP, and diastolic blood pressure (R= 0.258, p= 0.113), (R= 0.005, p= 0.975), (R=-0.234, p=0.152), and (R= 0.060, p=0.717). ConclusionRNFL thickness measurements showed significance correlation with RNFL parameter. It is not clearif past RNFL thickness, refractive error and IOP related with RNFL thickness even showedsignificance correlation with age, gender, and systolic blood pressure.
Relationship Between Mean Deviation Slope with Related Risk Factors and Foveal Sensitivity of Humphrey Field Analyzer Test in Open Angle Glaucoma: Oral Presentation - Observational Study - Resident Rizki, Hanis Fatkhul; Gani, Tatang Talka; Ekantini, Retno; Jati , Krisna Dwi Purnomo
Majalah Oftalmologi Indonesia Vol 49 No S2 (2023): Supplement Edition
Publisher : The Indonesian Ophthalmologists Association (IOA, Perhimpunan Dokter Spesialis Mata Indonesia (Perdami))

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.35749/hcfjcs46

Abstract

Introduction & ObjectivesTo analyze relationship between mean deviation (MD) slope with related risk factors and fovealsensitivity of Humphrey field analyzer (HFA) in open angle glaucoma. Patient and MethodsThis study was retrospective and consecutive sampling during a year follow up period in SardjitoGeneral Hospital. A total 95 eyes from 95 patient were exemained the MD slope by HFA (SITAstandard, 24-2 program) being follow up and compared first examination with the final VF test.Relation of MD slope with risk factors and HFA parameters were correlatively analyzed. ResultsMean Deviation slope was observed in 48/95 patients (50.52 %) and no progression was observed in47/95 patients (49.47 %). The related risk factors gender, age, spherical equivalent and IOP do notshowed significant correlation with MD slope (R= 0.02, P= 0.89), (R=0.10, p=0.47), (R=-0.27, p=0.06) and (R=-0,13, p= 0.35). Foveal sensitivity test in HFA parameter do not showed significantcorrelation with MD slope (R= 0.14, p=0.32). ConclusionWorsening value of spherical equivalent and IOP showed negative correlation to MD slope, butstatistically do not showed significant correlation caused there are not much differences betweenprogress and non progress group.