Abstract
Measurements of optic disc diameter with the Zeiss 4-mirror contact lens and 78 dioptre (D) lens, made by projecting a slit-beam of known height onto the image of the disc, were compared with planimetric measurements in 30 eyes. The 78 D lens measurements were significantly larger than both the Zeiss lens and planimetric measurements (p<0.0001 and p = 0.0047 respectively). The measurements using the Zeiss lens and planimetry did not differ significantly. Compared with planimetry, for the 24 eyes within 3 D of emmetropia, the correlation was greater for the Zeiss (r= 0.8591) than for the 78 D lens (r=0.7148). The Zeiss lens also showed better agreement and less scatter of results compared with the 78 D lens (standard error of the mean ± 0.0373 mm for the Zeiss and ± 0.0418 mm for the 78 D lens). The Zeiss contact lens measurements of optic disc diameter show stronger correlation and better agreement with planimetry than measurements using a 78 D lens.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Jonas JB, Gusek GC, Guggenmoos-Holzmann I, Naumann GOH . Variability of the real dimensions of normal human optic discs. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1988;226:332–6.
Bengtsson B . The variation and covariation of cup and disc diameters. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1976;54:804–18.
Quigley HA, Brown AE, Morrison JD, Drance SM . The size and shape of the optic disc in normal human eyes, Arch Ophthalmol 1990;108:51–7.The size and shape of the optic disc in normal human eyes, Arch Ophthalmol 1990;108:51–7.
Heijl A, Molder H . Optic disc diameter influences the ability to detect glaucomatous disc damage. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1993;71:122–9.
Beck RW, Savino PJ, Repka MX, et al. Optic disc structure in anterior ischaemic optic neuropathy. Ophthalmology 1984;91:1334–7.
Spencer WH . Drusen of the optic disc and aberrant axoplasmic transport. The XXXIV Edward Jackson Memorial Lecture. Am J Ophthalmol 1978;85:1–12.
Beuchat L, Safran AB . Optic nerve hypoplasia: papillary diameter and clinical correlation. J Clin Neuro-ophthalmol 1985;5:249–53.
Burk ROW, Rohrschneider K, Noack H, Volcker HE . Are large optic nerve heads susceptible to glaucomatous damage at normal intraocular pressure? A three-dimensional study by scanning laser tomography. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1992;230:552–60.
Chi T, Ritch R, Stickler D, Pitman B, Tsai C, Hsieh FY . Racial differences in optic nerve head parameters. Arch Ophthalmol 1989;107:836–9.
Balazsi AG, Drance SM, Schulzer M, Douglas GR . Neuroretinal rim area in suspected glaucoma and early chronic open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1984;102:1011–4.
Jonas JB, Gusek GC, Naumann GOH . Optic disc, cup and neuroretinal rim size, configuration and correlations in normal eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1988;29:1151–8.
Takamoto T, Schwartz B . Reproducibility of photogrammetric optic disc cup measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1985;26:814–7.
Schwartz B . New techniques for the examination of the optic disc and their clinical application. Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol 1976;81:227–5.
Portney GL . Photogrammetric analysis of volume asymmetry of the optic nerve head cup in normal, hypertensive and glaucomatous eyes. Am J Ophthalmol 1975;80:51–5.
Cioffi GA, Robin AL, Eastman RD, Perell HF, Sarfarazi FA, Kelman SE . Confocal laser scanning ophthalmoscope: reproducibility of optic nerve head topographic measurements with the confocal laser scanning ophthalmoscope. Ophthalmology 1993;100:57–62.
Gross PG, Drance SM . Comparison of a simple ophthalmoscopic and planimetric measurement of glaucomatous neuroretinal rim areas. J Glaucoma 1995;4:314–6.
Spencer AF, Vernon SA . Optic disc measurement with the Zeiss 4-mirror contact-lens. Br J Ophthalmol 1994;78:775–80.
Ruben S . Estimation of optic disc size using indirect biomicroscopy. Br J Ophthalmol 1994;78:363–4.
Bengtsson B, Krakau CET . Correction of optic disc measurements on fundus photographs. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1991;230:24–8.
Bland JM, Altman DG . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;l:307–10.
Spencer AF, Vernon SA . Vertical optic disc diameter: the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph versus photographs. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1995;36:796–803.
Franceschetti A, Bock RH . Megalopapilla: a new congenital anomaly. Am J Ophthalmol 1950;33:227–34.
Elkington A, Frank H . Clinical optics. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific,1984:134.
Montgomery DMI . The optical spacer: a simple device which extends the scope of indirect ophthalmoscopy. Br J Ophthalmol 1992;76:45–6.
Wells E, Barrall J, Martin D . Fundus measurements with indirect ophthalmoscopy: an experimental approach. Arch Ophthalmol 1992;110:1303–8.
Enoch J, Goldberg M . Lateral and longitudinal magnification in direct and indirect ophthalmoscopy. Arch Ophthalmol 1971;86:536–47.
Littmann H . The determination of the true size of objects in the background of the living eye. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 1982;180:286–9.
Colenbrander A . Principles of ophthalmoscopy. In: Duane TD, Jaeger AE, editors. Clinical ophthalmology, vol 1. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott, 1989:chap 63-19.
Mansour AM . Measuring fundus landmarks. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1990;31:41–2.
Pach J, Pennell DO, Romano PE . Optic disc photogrammetry: magnification factors for eye position, centration, and ametropias, refractive and axial; and their application in the diagnosis of optic nerve hypoplasia. Ann Ophthalmol 1989;21:454–62.
Lotmar W . Dependence of magnification upon the camera-to-eye distance in the Zeiss fundus camera. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1984;62:131–4.
Arnold JV, Gates JWC, Taylor KM . Possible errors in the measurement of retinal lesions. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1993;34:2576–80.
Barr DB . Estimation of optic disc size. Br J Ophthalmol 1995;79:298.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Spencer, A., Vernon, S. Optic disc height measurement with the Zeiss 4-mirror contact lens and 78 dioptre lens compared. Eye 10, 371–376 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.1996.76
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.1996.76
