Giulio Barteselli1, Dirk-Uwe Bartsch2, Francesco Viola3, Francesca Mojana4, Marco Pellegrini5, Kathrin I Hartmann6, Eleonora Benatti3, Simon Leicht6, Roberto Ratiglia3, Giovanni Staurenghi5, Robert N Weinreb7, William R Freeman8. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Jacobs Retina Center at Shiley Eye Center, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California; Clinica Oculistica, Dipartimento di Scienze Cliniche e di Comunità, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda-Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Jacobs Retina Center at Shiley Eye Center, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California. 3. Clinica Oculistica, Dipartimento di Scienze Cliniche e di Comunità, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda-Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 4. Clinica Oculistica, Azienda Ospedaliera Sant'Anna, Como, Italy. 5. Eye Clinic, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Science "Luigi Sacco", University of Milan, Luigi Sacco Hospital, Milan, Italy. 6. Department of Ophthalmology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany. 7. Department of Ophthalmology, Hamilton Glaucoma Center at Shiley Eye Center, University of California San Diego, La Jolla California. 8. Department of Ophthalmology, Jacobs Retina Center at Shiley Eye Center, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California. Electronic address: freeman@eyecenter.ucsd.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate temporal changes and predictors of accuracy in the alignment between simultaneous near-infrared image and optical coherence tomography (OCT) scan on the Heidelberg Spectralis using a model eye. DESIGN: Laboratory investigation. METHODS: After calibrating the device, 6 sites performed weekly testing of the alignment for 12 weeks using a model eye. The maximum error was compared with multiple variables to evaluate predictors of inaccurate alignment. Variables included the number of weekly scanned patients, total number of OCT scans and B-scans performed, room temperature and its variation, and working time of the scanning laser. A 4-week extension study was subsequently performed to analyze short-term changes in the alignment. RESULTS: The average maximum error in the alignment was 15 ± 6 μm; the greatest error was 35 μm. The error increased significantly at week 1 (P = .01), specifically after the second imaging study (P < .05); reached a maximum after the eighth patient (P < .001); and then varied randomly over time. Predictors for inaccurate alignment were temperature variation and scans per patient (P < .001). For each 1 unit of increase in temperature variation, the estimated increase in maximum error was 1.26 μm. For the average number of scans per patient, each increase of 1 unit increased the error by 0.34 μm. CONCLUSION: Overall, the accuracy of the Heidelberg Spectralis was excellent. The greatest error happened in the first week after calibration, and specifically after the second imaging study. To improve the accuracy, room temperature should be kept stable and unnecessary scans should be avoided. The alignment of the device does not need to be checked on a regular basis in the clinical setting, but it should be checked after every other patient for more precise research purposes. Published by Elsevier Inc.
PURPOSE: To evaluate temporal changes and predictors of accuracy in the alignment between simultaneous near-infrared image and optical coherence tomography (OCT) scan on the Heidelberg Spectralis using a model eye. DESIGN: Laboratory investigation. METHODS: After calibrating the device, 6 sites performed weekly testing of the alignment for 12 weeks using a model eye. The maximum error was compared with multiple variables to evaluate predictors of inaccurate alignment. Variables included the number of weekly scanned patients, total number of OCT scans and B-scans performed, room temperature and its variation, and working time of the scanning laser. A 4-week extension study was subsequently performed to analyze short-term changes in the alignment. RESULTS: The average maximum error in the alignment was 15 ± 6 μm; the greatest error was 35 μm. The error increased significantly at week 1 (P = .01), specifically after the second imaging study (P < .05); reached a maximum after the eighth patient (P < .001); and then varied randomly over time. Predictors for inaccurate alignment were temperature variation and scans per patient (P < .001). For each 1 unit of increase in temperature variation, the estimated increase in maximum error was 1.26 μm. For the average number of scans per patient, each increase of 1 unit increased the error by 0.34 μm. CONCLUSION: Overall, the accuracy of the Heidelberg Spectralis was excellent. The greatest error happened in the first week after calibration, and specifically after the second imaging study. To improve the accuracy, room temperature should be kept stable and unnecessary scans should be avoided. The alignment of the device does not need to be checked on a regular basis in the clinical setting, but it should be checked after every other patient for more precise research purposes. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Steven D Schwartz; Jean-Pierre Hubschman; Gad Heilwell; Valentina Franco-Cardenas; Carolyn K Pan; Rosaleen M Ostrick; Edmund Mickunas; Roger Gay; Irina Klimanskaya; Robert Lanza Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-01-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Andrea Giani; Marco Pellegrini; Alessandro Invernizzi; Mario Cigada; Giovanni Staurenghi Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2012-11-13 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Giulio Barteselli; Dirk-Uwe Bartsch; Sharif El-Emam; Maria Laura Gomez; Jay Chhablani; Su Na Lee; Laura Conner; William R Freeman Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2012-12-17 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Su Na Lee; Jay Chhablani; Candy K Chan; Haiyan Wang; Giulio Barteselli; Sharif El-Emam; Maria L Gomez; Igor Kozak; Lingyun Cheng; William R Freeman Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2013-02-06 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: S Schmitz-Valckenberg; C K Brinkmann; M Fleckenstein; B Heimes; S Liakopoulos; G Spital; F G Holz Journal: Ophthalmologe Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 1.059
Authors: Tobias Duncker; Marcela Marsiglia; Winston Lee; Jana Zernant; Stephen H Tsang; Rando Allikmets; Vivienne C Greenstein; Janet R Sparrow Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-10-23 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Goichi Akiyama; Sindhu Saraswathy; Thania Bogarin; Xiaojing Pan; Ernesto Barron; Tina T Wong; Mika K Kaneko; Yukinari Kato; Young Hong; Alex S Huang Journal: Exp Eye Res Date: 2020-05-06 Impact factor: 3.467
Authors: Michael J Heiferman; Joshua K Fernandes; Marion Munk; Rukhsana G Mirza; Lee M Jampol; Amani A Fawzi Journal: Retina Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Ilkay Kilic Muftuoglu; Hema L Ramkumar; Dirk-Uwe Bartsch; Amit Meshi; Raouf Gaber; William R Freeman Journal: Retina Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Maura Di Nicola; Giulio Barteselli; Laura Dell'Arti; Roberto Ratiglia; Francesco Viola Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-06-08 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Travis B Smith; Maria Parker; Peter N Steinkamp; Richard G Weleber; Ning Smith; David J Wilson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 3.240