PURPOSE: To compare the sensitivity of volume scanning with optical coherence tomography (OCT) to nonmydriatic color fundus photography (FP) for the detection of retinal irregularities in asymptomatic populations. METHODS: Asymptomatic subjects without known ocular disease were recruited over a 6-month period. For each eye, two undilated 45° fundus images and four undilated volume OCT image sets covering the macula and optic nerve were obtained. Color images were evaluated for irregularities both inside and outside the area covered by OCT. OCT image sets were evaluated for internal limiting membrane irregularities, abnormal retinal thickness, hyper/hyporeflective features, and photoreceptor/retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) irregularities. Detection sensitivities were compared and false-negative cases were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 284 eyes (144 subjects) were included, with a mean age of 38.1 years (range 18-77). Among 253 eyes (135 subjects) with gradable images from both FP and OCTs, the detection sensitivities for OCT were higher (96.2% infield and 85.7% in full field) than for FP (19.9% infield and 43.8% in full field) for all irregularities evaluated in the study (including epiretinal irregularities, abnormal retinal thickness, intraretinal hyperreflective/hyporeflective features, and photoreceptor/RPE irregularities). Overall, the presence of definite irregularities on either fundus imaging or OCT by eye in this asymptomatic population was 42.6% (121/284), with 39.4% (112/284) of eyes having RPE irregularities such as drusen. CONCLUSIONS: For detection of a variety of retinal irregularities evaluated in the current study, volume OCT scanning was more sensitive than nonmydriatic retinal photography in our asymptomatic individuals. OCT detected clinically relevant disease features, such as subretinal fluid, that were missed by FP, and had a lower ungradable image rate. It is likely that OCT will be added to photography screening in the near future for chorioretinal disease.
PURPOSE: To compare the sensitivity of volume scanning with optical coherence tomography (OCT) to nonmydriatic color fundus photography (FP) for the detection of retinal irregularities in asymptomatic populations. METHODS: Asymptomatic subjects without known ocular disease were recruited over a 6-month period. For each eye, two undilated 45° fundus images and four undilated volume OCT image sets covering the macula and optic nerve were obtained. Color images were evaluated for irregularities both inside and outside the area covered by OCT. OCT image sets were evaluated for internal limiting membrane irregularities, abnormal retinal thickness, hyper/hyporeflective features, and photoreceptor/retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) irregularities. Detection sensitivities were compared and false-negative cases were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 284 eyes (144 subjects) were included, with a mean age of 38.1 years (range 18-77). Among 253 eyes (135 subjects) with gradable images from both FP and OCTs, the detection sensitivities for OCT were higher (96.2% infield and 85.7% in full field) than for FP (19.9% infield and 43.8% in full field) for all irregularities evaluated in the study (including epiretinal irregularities, abnormal retinal thickness, intraretinal hyperreflective/hyporeflective features, and photoreceptor/RPE irregularities). Overall, the presence of definite irregularities on either fundus imaging or OCT by eye in this asymptomatic population was 42.6% (121/284), with 39.4% (112/284) of eyes having RPE irregularities such as drusen. CONCLUSIONS: For detection of a variety of retinal irregularities evaluated in the current study, volume OCT scanning was more sensitive than nonmydriatic retinal photography in our asymptomatic individuals. OCT detected clinically relevant disease features, such as subretinal fluid, that were missed by FP, and had a lower ungradable image rate. It is likely that OCT will be added to photography screening in the near future for chorioretinal disease.
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: N Minuto; V Emmanuele; M Vannati; C Russo; C Rebora; S Panarello; A Pistorio; R Lorini; G d'Annunzio Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2011-10-06 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: M J Buxton; M J Sculpher; B A Ferguson; J E Humphreys; J F Altman; D J Spiegelhalter; A J Kirby; J S Jacob; H Bacon; S B Dudbridge Journal: Diabet Med Date: 1991-05 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Sarah Mackenzie; Christian Schmermer; Amanda Charnley; Dawn Sim; Martin Dumskyj; Stephen Nussey; Catherine Egan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-05-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Chris Cho; Melissa M Liu; Roomasa Channa; Alice Y Zhang; Harry A Quigley; Joan L Jefferys; Adrienne W Scott Journal: J Vitreoretin Dis Date: 2018-11-20
Authors: Ou Tan; Aiyin Chen; Yan Li; Steven Bailey; Thomas S Hwang; Andreas K Lauer; Michael F Chiang; David Huang Journal: Exp Biol Med (Maywood) Date: 2021-09-15
Authors: Bruno R Fidalgo; Priya Dabasia; Anish Jindal; David F Edgar; Irene Ctori; Tunde Peto; John G Lawrenson Journal: BMJ Open Ophthalmol Date: 2019-12-04