½Ã½Å°æÀ¯µÎÁ÷°æ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ À¯µÎ¿¬-Ȳ¹Ý¿À¸ñ°Å¸®ÀÇ ºñ¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ ½Ã½Å°æÀ¯µÎ Å©±â Æò°¡ÀÇ ¿¹Ãø·Â
The Ability of Disc-to-Fovea Distance to Disc-Diameter Ratio to Estimate Optic Disc Size
À¯Çö±Ô ( Yoo Hyun-Gyu ) - ¾ÆÁÖ´ëÇб³ Àǰú´ëÇÐ ¾È°úÇб³½Ç
¾ÈÀçÈ« ( Ahn Jae-Hong ) - ¾ÆÁÖ´ëÇб³ Àǰú´ëÇÐ ¾È°úÇб³½Ç
À̸¶ºó ( Lee Mar-Vin ) - ¾ÆÁÖ´ëÇб³ Àǰú´ëÇÐ ¾È°úÇб³½Ç
Abstract
¸ñÀû: ½Ã½Å°æÀ¯µÎÁ÷°æ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ À¯µÎ¿¬-Ȳ¹Ý¿À¸ñ°Å¸®ÀÇ ºñ(disc-to-fovea distance to disc-diameter ratio; DF/DD ratio)ÀÇ Å« ½Ã½Å°æ À¯µÎ¿Í ÀÛÀº ½Ã½Å°æÀ¯µÎ ±¸º°¿¡ ´ëÇÑ À¯¿ë¼ºÀ» ¾Ë¾Æº¸¾Ò´Ù. ´ë»ó°ú ¹æ¹ý: Á¤»ó ¹× ³ì³»Àå 300¾ÈÀ» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î ÀÔü ½Ã½Å°æÀ¯µÎ »çÁøÀ» ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© DF/DD ratio¸¦ ±¸Çϰí, ½Ã½Å°æÀ¯µÎ Å©±â¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÃßÁ¤ ´É·Â ÆÇÁ¤À» À§ÇØ Area under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUCs)¿Í ¹Î°¨µµ ¹× ƯÀ̵µ¸¦ ºÐ¼®Çß´Ù. °á°ú: DF/DD ratio¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© ¿¹ÃøÇÑ AUCs´Â Å« ½Ã½Å°æÀ¯µÎÀÇ °æ¿ì 0.942, ÀÛÀº ½Ã½Å°æÀ¯µÎÀÇ °æ¿ì 0.947À̾ú´Ù. DF/DD ratio 2.0À» ±âÁØÀ¸·Î ÇÏ¿´À» ¶§ °¢°¢ÀÇ Áø´Ü¿¡ ÀÖ¾î 100%ÀÇ ¹Î°¨µµ¸¦ °¡Áö³ª Å« ½Ã½Å°æÀ¯µÎ´Â 70.2%, ÀÛÀº ½Ã½Å°æÀ¯µÎ´Â 40.9%ÀÇ Æ¯À̵µ¸¦ º¸¿´´Ù. °á·Ð: DF/DD ratio´Â Å« ½Ã½Å°æÀ¯µÎ¿Í ÀÛÀº ½Ã½Å°æÀ¯µÎÀÇ ±¸º°¿¡ À¯¿ëÇϸç DF/DD ratio 2.0À» ±âÁØÀ¸·Î ¼³Á¤Çϸé 100%ÀÇ ¹Î°¨µµ¸¦ º¸¿´À¸³ª Áß°£ Å©±âÀÇ ½Ã½Å°æÀ¯µÎ°¡ ÀÛÀº ½Ã½Å°æÀ¯µÎ·Î ºÐ·ùµÉ È®·üÀÌ ³ô¾Ò´Ù.
Purpose: To investigate the usefulness of the measurement of disc-to-fovea distance to disc-diameter ratio (DF/DD ratio) in detecting large and small discs. Methods: A total of 300 randomly selected subjects were included in the present study. All patients underwent stereoscopic disc photography and DF/DD ratio, which is the shortest distance between disc margin and fovea divided by mean disc diameter was determined by planimetry. The diagnostic accuracy of DF/DD ratio was evaluated using areas under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUCs), sensitivity, and specificity. Results: No significant differences in disc-to-fovea distance were observed among small and large disc groups. The DF/DD ratio was significantly lower in subjects with large discs (1.74 ¡¾ 0.27) compared with subjects with small discs (2.70 ¡¾ 0.15). AUCs of the DF/DD ratio were 0.942 and 0.947 in detecting large and small discs, respectively. In detecting disc size by a fixed DF/DD ratio of 2.0, sensitivity was 100% for both large and small discs, and specificity was 70.1% and 40.9% for the large and small discs, respectively. Conclusions: The DF/DD ratio may be a simple and useful clinical aid in detecting large and small discs. The 2.0 fixed DF/DD ratio, showed 100% sensitivity in detecting both large and small discs, although medium discs may be misdiagnosed as small discs more often than as large discs.
Ű¿öµå
Disc diameter;Disc-to-fovea distance;Optic disc size;Stereoscopic disc photography
KMID :
0360220130540060913
DOI :
¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸
µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸