PURPOSE: To develop an eye-motion-tracking optical coherence tomographic (OCT) method and assess its effect on image registration and nerve fiber layer (NFL) thickness measurement reproducibility. METHODS: A system capable of tracking common fundus features based on reflectance changes was integrated into a commercial OCT unit (OCT II; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA) and tested on healthy subjects and patients with glaucoma. Twenty successive peripapillary NFL scans were obtained with tracking and 20 without tracking, for 40 images in each session for each eye. Subjects participated in one session on three different days. Composite OCT scans and composite fundus images were generated for assessment of eye tracking. NFL thickness measurement reproducibility was also assessed. RESULTS: Seven healthy and nine glaucomatous eyes of 16 subjects were recruited. A qualitative assessment of composite OCT scans and composite fundus images showed little motion artifact or blurring along edges and blood vessels during tracking; however, those structures were less clearly defined when tracking was disengaged. There was no significant reproducibility difference with and without tracking in both intra- and intersession NFL measurement SD calculations in any location. The mean retinal pixel SD was significantly smaller with tracking than without (490.9 +/- 19.3 microm vs. 506.4 +/- 31.8 microm, P = 0.005, paired t-test). CONCLUSIONS: A retinal-tracking system was successfully developed and integrated into a commercial OCT unit. Tracking OCT improved the consistency of scan registration, but did not influence NFL thickness measurement reproducibility in this small sample study.
PURPOSE: To develop an eye-motion-tracking optical coherence tomographic (OCT) method and assess its effect on image registration and nerve fiber layer (NFL) thickness measurement reproducibility. METHODS: A system capable of tracking common fundus features based on reflectance changes was integrated into a commercial OCT unit (OCT II; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA) and tested on healthy subjects and patients with glaucoma. Twenty successive peripapillary NFL scans were obtained with tracking and 20 without tracking, for 40 images in each session for each eye. Subjects participated in one session on three different days. Composite OCT scans and composite fundus images were generated for assessment of eye tracking. NFL thickness measurement reproducibility was also assessed. RESULTS: Seven healthy and nine glaucomatous eyes of 16 subjects were recruited. A qualitative assessment of composite OCT scans and composite fundus images showed little motion artifact or blurring along edges and blood vessels during tracking; however, those structures were less clearly defined when tracking was disengaged. There was no significant reproducibility difference with and without tracking in both intra- and intersession NFL measurement SD calculations in any location. The mean retinal pixel SD was significantly smaller with tracking than without (490.9 +/- 19.3 microm vs. 506.4 +/- 31.8 microm, P = 0.005, paired t-test). CONCLUSIONS: A retinal-tracking system was successfully developed and integrated into a commercial OCT unit. Tracking OCT improved the consistency of scan registration, but did not influence NFL thickness measurement reproducibility in this small sample study.
Authors: Maciej Wojtkowski; Rainer Leitgeb; Andrzej Kowalczyk; Tomasz Bajraszewski; Adolf F Fercher Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 3.170
Authors: R Daniel Ferguson; Daniel X Hammer; Lelia Adelina Paunescu; Siobahn Beaton; Joel S Schuman Journal: Opt Lett Date: 2004-09-15 Impact factor: 3.776
Authors: D Huang; E A Swanson; C P Lin; J S Schuman; W G Stinson; W Chang; M R Hee; T Flotte; K Gregory; C A Puliafito Journal: Science Date: 1991-11-22 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: J S Schuman; M R Hee; C A Puliafito; C Wong; T Pedut-Kloizman; C P Lin; E Hertzmark; J A Izatt; E A Swanson; J G Fujimoto Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 1995-05
Authors: C A Puliafito; M R Hee; C P Lin; E Reichel; J S Schuman; J S Duker; J A Izatt; E A Swanson; J G Fujimoto Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 1995-02 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: C Bowd; L M Zangwill; C C Berry; E Z Blumenthal; C Vasile; C Sanchez-Galeana; C F Bosworth; P A Sample; R N Weinreb Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Hiroshi Ishikawa; Daniel M Stein; Gadi Wollstein; Siobahn Beaton; James G Fujimoto; Joel S Schuman Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Jong S Kim; Hiroshi Ishikawa; Michelle L Gabriele; Gadi Wollstein; Richard A Bilonick; Larry Kagemann; James G Fujimoto; Joel S Schuman Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2009-09-08 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Daniel X Hammer; R Daniel Ferguson; Chad E Bigelow; Nicusor V Iftimia; Teoman E Ustun; Stephen A Burns Journal: Opt Express Date: 2006-04-17 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Michelle L Gabriele; Gadi Wollstein; Hiroshi Ishikawa; Larry Kagemann; Juan Xu; Lindsey S Folio; Joel S Schuman Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-04-14 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Omer P Kocaoglu; R Daniel Ferguson; Ravi S Jonnal; Zhuolin Liu; Qiang Wang; Daniel X Hammer; Donald T Miller Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2014-06-17 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Jennyffer D Smith; Allison Jussel; Rachel Wang; Daniel R Coates; Wendy W Harrison Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2021-03-13 Impact factor: 2.379
Authors: Michelle L Gabriele; Gadi Wollstein; Hiroshi Ishikawa; Juan Xu; Jongsick Kim; Larry Kagemann; Lindsey S Folio; Joel S Schuman Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2010-06-11 Impact factor: 21.198
Authors: Felipe A Medeiros; Linda M Zangwill; Luciana M Alencar; Christopher Bowd; Pamela A Sample; Remo Susanna; Robert N Weinreb Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2009-10-08 Impact factor: 4.799