PURPOSE: To report the frequency of optical coherence tomography (OCT) scan artifacts and to compare macular thickness measurements, interscan reproducibility, and interdevice agreeability across 3 spectral-domain (SD) OCT (also known as Fourier domain; Cirrus HD-OCT, RTVue-100, and Topcon 3D-OCT 1000) devices and 1 time-domain (TD) OCT (Stratus OCT) device. DESIGN: Prospective, noncomparative, noninterventional case series. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-two patients seen at the New England Eye Center, Tufts Medical Center Retina Service, between February and August 2008. METHODS: Two scans were performed for each of the SD OCT protocols: Cirrus macular cube 512 x 128 (software version 3.0; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA), RTVue (E)MM5 and MM6 (software version 3.5; Optovue, Inc., Fremont, CA), Topcon 3D Macular and Radial (software version 2.12; Topcon, Inc., Paramus, NJ), in addition to 1 TD OCT scan via Stratus macular thickness protocol (software version 4.0; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc.). Scans were inspected for 6 types of OCT scan artifacts and were analyzed. Interscan reproducibility and interdevice agreeability were assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots, respectively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Optical coherence tomography image artifacts, macular thickness, reproducibility, and agreeability. RESULTS: Time-domain OCT scans contained a significantly higher percentage of clinically significant improper central foveal thickness (IFT) after manual correction (11-mum change or more) compared with SD OCT scans. Cirrus HD-OCT had a significantly lower percentage of clinically significant IFT (11.1%) compared with the other SD OCT devices (Topcon 3D, 20.4%; Topcon Radial, 29.6%; RTVue (E)MM5, 42.6%; RTVue MM6, 24.1%; P = 0.001). All 3 SD OCT devices had central foveal subfield thicknesses that were significantly more than that of TD OCT after manual correction (P<0.0001). All 3 SD OCT devices demonstrated a high degree of reproducibility in the central foveal region (ICCs, 0.92-0.97). Bland-Altman plots showed low agreeability between TD and SD OCT scans. CONCLUSIONS: Out of all OCT devices analyzed, cirrus HD-OCT scans exhibited the lowest occurrence of any artifacts (68.5%), IFT (40.7%), and clinically significant IFT (11.1%), whereas Stratus OCT scans exhibited the highest occurrence of clinically significant IFT. Further work on improving segmentation algorithm to decrease artifacts is warranted.
PURPOSE: To report the frequency of optical coherence tomography (OCT) scan artifacts and to compare macular thickness measurements, interscan reproducibility, and interdevice agreeability across 3 spectral-domain (SD) OCT (also known as Fourier domain; Cirrus HD-OCT, RTVue-100, and Topcon 3D-OCT 1000) devices and 1 time-domain (TD) OCT (Stratus OCT) device. DESIGN: Prospective, noncomparative, noninterventional case series. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-two patients seen at the New England Eye Center, Tufts Medical Center Retina Service, between February and August 2008. METHODS: Two scans were performed for each of the SD OCT protocols: Cirrus macular cube 512 x 128 (software version 3.0; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA), RTVue (E)MM5 and MM6 (software version 3.5; Optovue, Inc., Fremont, CA), Topcon 3D Macular and Radial (software version 2.12; Topcon, Inc., Paramus, NJ), in addition to 1 TD OCT scan via Stratus macular thickness protocol (software version 4.0; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc.). Scans were inspected for 6 types of OCT scan artifacts and were analyzed. Interscan reproducibility and interdevice agreeability were assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots, respectively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Optical coherence tomography image artifacts, macular thickness, reproducibility, and agreeability. RESULTS: Time-domain OCT scans contained a significantly higher percentage of clinically significant improper central foveal thickness (IFT) after manual correction (11-mum change or more) compared with SD OCT scans. Cirrus HD-OCT had a significantly lower percentage of clinically significant IFT (11.1%) compared with the other SD OCT devices (Topcon 3D, 20.4%; Topcon Radial, 29.6%; RTVue (E)MM5, 42.6%; RTVue MM6, 24.1%; P = 0.001). All 3 SD OCT devices had central foveal subfield thicknesses that were significantly more than that of TD OCT after manual correction (P<0.0001). All 3 SD OCT devices demonstrated a high degree of reproducibility in the central foveal region (ICCs, 0.92-0.97). Bland-Altman plots showed low agreeability between TD and SD OCT scans. CONCLUSIONS: Out of all OCT devices analyzed, cirrus HD-OCT scans exhibited the lowest occurrence of any artifacts (68.5%), IFT (40.7%), and clinically significant IFT (11.1%), whereas Stratus OCT scans exhibited the highest occurrence of clinically significant IFT. Further work on improving segmentation algorithm to decrease artifacts is warranted.
Authors: Maciej Wojtkowski; Rainer Leitgeb; Andrzej Kowalczyk; Tomasz Bajraszewski; Adolf F Fercher Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 3.170
Authors: Lelia A Paunescu; Joel S Schuman; Lori Lyn Price; Paul C Stark; Siobahn Beaton; Hiroshi Ishikawa; Gadi Wollstein; James G Fujimoto Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Christopher Kai-shun Leung; Carol Yim-lui Cheung; Robert N Weinreb; Gary Lee; Dusheng Lin; Chi Pui Pang; Dennis S C Lam Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2008-04-30 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Farzin Forooghian; Catherine Cukras; Catherine B Meyerle; Emily Y Chew; Wai T Wong Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2008-05-30 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Jeong W Pak; Ashwini Narkar; Sapna Gangaputra; Ronald Klein; Barbara Klein; Stacy Meuer; Yijun Huang; Ronald P Danis Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2013-07-02 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Marisa G Tieger; Thomas R Hedges; Joseph Ho; Natalie K Erlich-Malona; Laurel N Vuong; Geetha K Athappilly; Carlos E Mendoza-Santiesteban Journal: J Neuroophthalmol Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 3.042
Authors: Ian C Holmen; Sri Meghana Konda; Jeong W Pak; Kyle W McDaniel; Barbara Blodi; Kimberly E Stepien; Amitha Domalpally Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Michelle T Cabrera; Ramiro S Maldonado; Cynthia A Toth; Rachelle V O'Connell; Bei Bei Chen; Stephanie J Chiu; Sina Farsiu; David K Wallace; Sandra S Stinnett; Gabriela M Maradiaga Panayotti; Geeta K Swamy; Sharon F Freedman Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Yingna Liu; Huseyin Simavli; Christian John Que; Jennifer L Rizzo; Edem Tsikata; Rie Maurer; Teresa C Chen Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2014-12-12 Impact factor: 5.258