{"title":"Retinal nerve fiber layer and ganglion cell complex thickness in diabetic smokers without diabetic retinopathy.","authors":"Kübra Özata Gündoğdu, Emine Doğan, Erkan Çelik, Gürsoy Alagöz","doi":"10.1080/15569527.2023.2268162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the thickness of the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) and macular ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GC-IPL) in smoker and nonsmoker diabetics without diabetic retinopathy.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Patients with diabetes were divided into two groups according to their smoking status: Group 1 consisted of 38 smoker diabetics who had chronically smoked more than 20 cigarettes per day for more than five years; Group 2 consisted of 38 nonsmoker diabetics. After a detailed ophthalmologic examination, the mean and regional (superior, supratemporal, inferior, inferotemporal, temporal, nasal, superonasal, and inferonasal) RNFL and GC-IPL thicknesses were measured with spectral-domain optic coherence tomography (SD-OCT) and compared between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean age was 54.7 ± 10.5 and 51.2 ± 9.7 years in the smoker and nonsmoker groups, respectively (<i>p</i> = 0.14). Gender, duration of diabetes, and the mean axial length were similar between groups (<i>p:</i>0.43, <i>p</i>:0.54, <i>p</i>: 0.52, respectively). Mean RNFL thickness was 89.1 ± 8.0 µm in the smoker group and 93.4 ± 7.0 µm in the nonsmoker group, and it was significantly thinner in the smoker group (<i>p</i> = 0.01). The temporal RNFL thickness in the smoker group was thinner than in the nonsmoker group (<i>p</i> = 0.02). There was no difference in superior, inferior, and nasal RNFL thicknesses between the groups (<i>p</i> = 0.31, <i>p</i> = 0.12, <i>p</i> = 0.39, respectively). The mean macular GC-IPL thickness of the smoker and nonsmoker groups was 78.53 ± 15.74 µm and 83.08 ± 5.85 µm, respectively (<i>p</i> = 0.09). Superior, superonasal, inferonasal, inferior, inferotemporal, and superotemporal quadrant GC-IPL thicknesses were similar between the groups (<i>p</i> = 0.07, <i>p</i> = 0.60, <i>p</i> = 0.55, <i>p</i> = 0.77, <i>p</i> = 0.71, <i>p =</i> 0.08, respectively). The groups showed no difference in minimum GC-IPL thickness (p = 0.43). There was a significant negative correlation between smoking exposure and mean, inferior quadrant RNFL thicknesses in the smoker group (<i>p</i> = 0.04, r= -0.32, and <i>p</i> = 0.01, r= -0.39, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Mean RNFL thickness was significantly thinner in smoker diabetics. Although not statistically significant, especially mean, superior, and superotemporal GC-IPL was thinner in smoker diabetics. The results suggest a potential association between the coexistence of diabetes and smoking with alterations in RNFL and GC-IPL thickness.</p>","PeriodicalId":11023,"journal":{"name":"Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15569527.2023.2268162","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the thickness of the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) and macular ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GC-IPL) in smoker and nonsmoker diabetics without diabetic retinopathy.
Materials and methods: Patients with diabetes were divided into two groups according to their smoking status: Group 1 consisted of 38 smoker diabetics who had chronically smoked more than 20 cigarettes per day for more than five years; Group 2 consisted of 38 nonsmoker diabetics. After a detailed ophthalmologic examination, the mean and regional (superior, supratemporal, inferior, inferotemporal, temporal, nasal, superonasal, and inferonasal) RNFL and GC-IPL thicknesses were measured with spectral-domain optic coherence tomography (SD-OCT) and compared between groups.
Results: The mean age was 54.7 ± 10.5 and 51.2 ± 9.7 years in the smoker and nonsmoker groups, respectively (p = 0.14). Gender, duration of diabetes, and the mean axial length were similar between groups (p:0.43, p:0.54, p: 0.52, respectively). Mean RNFL thickness was 89.1 ± 8.0 µm in the smoker group and 93.4 ± 7.0 µm in the nonsmoker group, and it was significantly thinner in the smoker group (p = 0.01). The temporal RNFL thickness in the smoker group was thinner than in the nonsmoker group (p = 0.02). There was no difference in superior, inferior, and nasal RNFL thicknesses between the groups (p = 0.31, p = 0.12, p = 0.39, respectively). The mean macular GC-IPL thickness of the smoker and nonsmoker groups was 78.53 ± 15.74 µm and 83.08 ± 5.85 µm, respectively (p = 0.09). Superior, superonasal, inferonasal, inferior, inferotemporal, and superotemporal quadrant GC-IPL thicknesses were similar between the groups (p = 0.07, p = 0.60, p = 0.55, p = 0.77, p = 0.71, p = 0.08, respectively). The groups showed no difference in minimum GC-IPL thickness (p = 0.43). There was a significant negative correlation between smoking exposure and mean, inferior quadrant RNFL thicknesses in the smoker group (p = 0.04, r= -0.32, and p = 0.01, r= -0.39, respectively).
Conclusion: Mean RNFL thickness was significantly thinner in smoker diabetics. Although not statistically significant, especially mean, superior, and superotemporal GC-IPL was thinner in smoker diabetics. The results suggest a potential association between the coexistence of diabetes and smoking with alterations in RNFL and GC-IPL thickness.
期刊介绍:
Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology is an international, peer-reviewed journal that covers all types of harm to cutaneous and ocular systems. Areas of particular interest include pharmaceutical and medical products; consumer, personal care, and household products; and issues in environmental and occupational exposures.
In addition to original research papers, reviews and short communications are invited, as well as concise, relevant, and critical reviews of topics of contemporary significance.