PURPOSE: An assessment of the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) provides important information on the health of the optic nerve. There are several non-invasive technologies, including spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD OCT), that can be used for in vivo imaging and quantification of the RNFL, but often there is disagreement in RNFL thickness between clinical instruments. The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of scan centration, ocular magnification, and segmentation on the degree of agreement of RNFL thickness measures by two SD OCT instruments. METHODS: RNFL scans were acquired from 45 normal eyes using two commercially available SD OCT systems. Agreement between RNFL thickness measures was determined using each instrument's algorithm for segmentation and a custom algorithm for segmentation. The custom algorithm included ocular biometry measures to compute the transverse scaling for each eye. Major retinal vessels were identified and removed from RNFL measures in 1:1 scaled images. Transverse scaling was also used to compute the RNFL area for each scan. RESULTS: Instrument-derived global RNFL thickness measured from the two instruments correlated well (R(2) = 0.70, p < 0.01) but with significant differences between instruments (mean of 6.7 μm; 95% limits of agreement of 16.0 μm to -2.5 μm, intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.62). For recentered scans with custom RNFL segmentation, the mean difference was reduced to 0.1 μm (95% limits of agreement 6.1 to -5.8 μm, intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.92). Global RNFL thickness was related to axial length (R = 0.24, p < 0.01), whereas global RNFL area measures were not (R(2) = 0.004, p = 0.66). Major retinal vasculature accounted for 11.3 ± 1.6% (Cirrus) or 11.8 ± 1.4% (Spectralis) of the RNFL thickness/area measures. CONCLUSIONS: Sources of disagreement in RNFL measures between SD-OCT instruments can be attributed to the location of the scan path and differences in their retinal layer segmentation algorithms. In normal eyes, the major retinal vasculature accounts for a significant percentage of the RNFL and is similar between instruments. With incorporation of an individual's ocular biometry, RNFL area measures are independent of axial length, with either instrument.
PURPOSE: An assessment of the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) provides important information on the health of the optic nerve. There are several non-invasive technologies, including spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD OCT), that can be used for in vivo imaging and quantification of the RNFL, but often there is disagreement in RNFL thickness between clinical instruments. The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of scan centration, ocular magnification, and segmentation on the degree of agreement of RNFL thickness measures by two SD OCT instruments. METHODS: RNFL scans were acquired from 45 normal eyes using two commercially available SD OCT systems. Agreement between RNFL thickness measures was determined using each instrument's algorithm for segmentation and a custom algorithm for segmentation. The custom algorithm included ocular biometry measures to compute the transverse scaling for each eye. Major retinal vessels were identified and removed from RNFL measures in 1:1 scaled images. Transverse scaling was also used to compute the RNFL area for each scan. RESULTS: Instrument-derived global RNFL thickness measured from the two instruments correlated well (R(2) = 0.70, p < 0.01) but with significant differences between instruments (mean of 6.7 μm; 95% limits of agreement of 16.0 μm to -2.5 μm, intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.62). For recentered scans with custom RNFL segmentation, the mean difference was reduced to 0.1 μm (95% limits of agreement 6.1 to -5.8 μm, intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.92). Global RNFL thickness was related to axial length (R = 0.24, p < 0.01), whereas global RNFL area measures were not (R(2) = 0.004, p = 0.66). Major retinal vasculature accounted for 11.3 ± 1.6% (Cirrus) or 11.8 ± 1.4% (Spectralis) of the RNFL thickness/area measures. CONCLUSIONS: Sources of disagreement in RNFL measures between SD-OCT instruments can be attributed to the location of the scan path and differences in their retinal layer segmentation algorithms. In normal eyes, the major retinal vasculature accounts for a significant percentage of the RNFL and is similar between instruments. With incorporation of an individual's ocular biometry, RNFL area measures are independent of axial length, with either instrument.
Authors: Teresa C Chen; Barry Cense; Mark C Pierce; Nader Nassif; B Hyle Park; Seok H Yun; Brian R White; Brett E Bouma; Guillermo J Tearney; Johannes F de Boer Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2005-12
Authors: David A Atchison; Emma L Markwell; Sanjeev Kasthurirangan; James M Pope; George Smith; Peter G Swann Journal: J Vis Date: 2008-04-28 Impact factor: 2.240
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: M Kamran Ikram; Simone de Voogd; Roger C W Wolfs; Albert Hofman; Monique M B Breteler; Larry D Hubbard; Paulus T V M de Jong Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Donald C Hood; Brad Fortune; Stella N Arthur; Danli Xing; Jennifer A Salant; Robert Ritch; Jeffrey M Liebmann Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2008 Oct-Nov Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Delia Bendschneider; Ralf P Tornow; Folkert K Horn; Robert Laemmer; Christopher W Roessler; Anselm G Juenemann; Friedrich E Kruse; Christian Y Mardin Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Drew Scoles; Daniel C Gray; Jennifer J Hunter; Robert Wolfe; Bernard P Gee; Ying Geng; Benjamin D Masella; Richard T Libby; Stephen Russell; David R Williams; William H Merigan Journal: BMC Ophthalmol Date: 2009-08-23 Impact factor: 2.209
Authors: Howard Lockwood; Juan Reynaud; Stuart Gardiner; Jonathan Grimm; Vincent Libertiaux; J Crawford Downs; Hongli Yang; Claude F Burgoyne Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-02-03 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Navid Amini; Sara Nowroozizadeh; Nila Cirineo; Sharon Henry; Ted Chang; Tom Chou; Anne L Coleman; Joseph Caprioli; Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Tuomas Heikka; Giovanni Ometto; Giovanni Montesano; Scott Rowe; Nomdo M Jansonius; David P Crabb Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2020-02-07 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Nimesh B Patel; Mimi Lim; Avni Gajjar; Kelsey B Evans; Ronald S Harwerth Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-07-22 Impact factor: 4.799