Objective To report normal reference values for peripapillary retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) thickness and optic disc parameters in children from a community population.
Methods The authors performed a cross-sectional study examining RNFL and optic nerve head (ONH) properties in 358 children aged between 6 and 13 years with no ocular disease. All children underwent an ophthalmic examination that included visual acuity (logMAR), stereopsis assessment (TNO) and optical coherence tomography (Cirrus OCT Zeiss, ‘Optic Disc Cube 200×200’ protocol). One eye from each subject selected at random was finally analysed. The authors evaluated the influence of height, gender and age on measurements.
Results High-quality scan data were obtained from 357 children and 344 were finally included. The mean age (SD) was 9.16 (1.7) years and the mean (SD) RNFL average thickness was 98.46 (10.79) μm. The temporal quadrant showed the thinnest RNFL (69.35±11.28 μm), followed by the nasal (71.30±13.45 μm), superior (123.65±19.49 μm) and inferior (130.18±18.13 μm) quadrants. The mean rim area (SD) and disc area (SD) were 1.59 (0.33) and 2.05 (0.39) mm2, respectively. The average cup to disc (C:D) ratio (SD) was 0.43 (0.19). The authors found no differences in any of the parameters with regard to weight, height and gender.
Conclusions This study demonstrates normative values of RNFL thickness and ONH parameters in a sample of Caucasian children from the general population.
- Optical coherence tomography
- retinal nerve fibre layer
- optic disc parameters
- normative values
- child health (paediatrics)
- optic nerve
- visual pathway
- visual perception
- contact lens
- diagnostic tests/investigation
- treatment surgery
- field of vision
- intraocular pressure
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Funding Funding was provided by the Jesus de Gangoiti Barrena Foundation (2010).
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval Approval was provided by CEICA (Comité ético de investigación clínica de Aragón).
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.