Certain anatomical changes that occur in longer axial length eyes, such as globe elongation, scleral widening, and subsequently enlargement of the lamina cribrosa, result in larger disc areas in such eyes. The use of magnification-adjustment can correct disc and rim areas measurements in those eyes.
Some studies using the Littman equation for magnification adjustment indicate that a magnification adjustment formula based on axial length is more accurate than other factors [12], and applied the formulas to global RNFL thickness, and disc area measurements in myopic subjects [13].
In the current study, regarding the optic disc and neuroretinal rim areas, a statistically significant increase was found in the myopia group as compared with the control group (Table 1), as the highly myopic eyes obtained a significantly larger disc, and rim areas. These results were consistent with previous study, which showed significant correlations between neuroretinal rim and disc area, and myopic refractive error, depending on optic disc colour photographs [14].
Table 1 Comparison between ONH parameters in both groups
In the current study, the mean magnification-adjusted disc area, in the myopia group, was 3.29 ± 0.66 mm2, which was comparable with the Hsu et al. study, as their mean optic disc area, using magnification-adjusted OCT measurements, was 3.30 ± 0.70 mm [15]. Also, this applies for the mean magnification-adjusted rim area, in the highly myopic group, which was 2.51 ± 0.48 mm, and was consistent with the other study result, as it was 2.45 ± 0.69 mm.
Another study, showed a smaller mean disc area, and rim area than current study results, as it was 2.07 ± 0.45, and 1.3 ± 0.22 mm2, respectively, with magnification effect correction, their study included Korean participants with lower degrees of myopia, MSE −3.28 ± 2.27 D (range −9.38 to −0.13), and shorter AL 25.03 ± 1.27 mm (range 22.84–28.60), factors that may contribute to the discrepancy between the two studies’ results [16].
The average C/D ratio value was 0.56 ± 0.119 mm in the myopia group, which was significantly larger than that of the control group (0.37 ± 0.08 mm) (Table 1). Also, the vertical C/D was significantly of higher values in the myopia group (0.55 ± 0.117 mm), while in the control group it was 0.39 ± 0.08 mm (Table 1).
In the current study, average magnification-adjusted RNFL was thicker in the myopic group than in the control group, as it was (109.21 ± 7.38 µm), (96.30 ± 4.91 µm) respectively, (p = 0.0001) (Table 2). This was consistent with previous reports that magnification-adjusted OCT measurements of global RNFL thickness was thicker than normal, in eyes with axial myopia [13, 15].
Table 2 Comparison between RNFL thicknesses in both groups
Temporal RNFL was significantly thicker than normal, in the myopia group. Which can be explained by the redistribution of nerve fiber layer in highly myopic eyes, that causes temporal retinal dragging and increased temporal RNFL thickness, also it increases the posterior staphyloma height in the nasal fovea area [17, 18].
No significant difference between myopic and control eyes, regarding OCT measurements of the vertical RNFLs (superior and inferior RNFL), which is useful for differential diagnosis between myopia and glaucoma. Kang and colleague [13], reported that superior and inferior temporal RNFL thicknesses (measured at the 11 and 7 o’clock positions, respectively) do not differ significantly between the highly myopic eyes (more than 6.00 D of myopia), and moderate and low myopic eyes (less than 6.00 D of myopia), which is consistent with the results observed in the current study, and in another study [15].
Previous studies showed that without magnification adjusted global and non-temporal RNFLs measurements, they appear significantly thinner than normal, in myopic eyes [18,19,20].
In the current study, a fair positive correlation was reported between spherical equivalent, and average C/D area, vertical C/D area, and inferior RNFL thickness (p = 0.006, 0.0001, and 0.001) respectively (Table 3). Spherical equivalent is liable to variability, as changes in corneal and lens refractive power, could affect refractometry, but not likely the axial length. Correlation between axial length and adjusted OCT measurements (RNFL, disc area and rim area) was not evaluated, as AL is used as a value in the magnification correction formula, so statistical artifacts may result, although some previous studies using OCT magnification corrected parameters studied such correlation. One study [13], reported a positive correlation between AL, and the adjusted global RNFL thickness, but in another study [21], there was no significant correlation reported between AL and adjusted global RNFL or the adjusted ONH size.
Table 3 Significant correlations between spherical equivalent and ONH parameters and RNFL thickness in myopia group
ONH measurements derived from SD-OCT devices are reported to be more accurate and reproducible in evaluating highly myopic patients, rather than depending on RNFL thickness measurements, as some anatomical optic disc changes, of highly myopic eyes, such as: tilting, oval configuration, and peripapillary atrophy [22], may influence the disc margin definition algorithms, potentially introducing some random bias to the RNFL thickness measurements.
Also, quantitative assessment of ONH parameters using SD-OCT, can be easily determined, due to high contrast between the non-reflective vitreous and the inner-limiting membrane, and the ability of SD-OCT to detect the end of Bruch’s membrane [23], thereby defining an accurate reference plane for measuring the neuroretinal rim.
The magnification-adjusted measurements are used for accurate assessment of RNFL thickness and optic disc parameters in highly myopic eyes, and to minimize the misdiagnosis of glaucoma in such eyes, as patients with myopia have an increased risk of developing glaucoma.
Limitations to this study include: the relative small size of the study population, and the study included only Egyptian participants, so care should be taken on application of our results to different ethnicities. The SD OCT machine (Cirrus version 4.0), which was the only available machine during the study period, may have a few fallacies in detecting BMO and ILM around the ONH. More recent versions (Cirrus OCT Version 6.0) were therefore introduced to correct these inaccuracies.