PURPOSE: To evaluate cone spacing using adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (AOSLO) in eyes with nonneovascular AMD, and to correlate progression of AOSLO-derived cone measures with standard measures of macular structure. METHODS: Adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy images were obtained over 12 to 21 months from seven patients with AMD including four eyes with geographic atrophy (GA) and four eyes with drusen. Adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy images were overlaid with color, infrared, and autofluorescence fundus photographs and spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) images to allow direct correlation of cone parameters with macular structure. Cone spacing was measured for each visit in selected regions including areas over drusen (n = 29), at GA margins (n = 14), and regions without drusen or GA (n = 13) and compared with normal, age-similar values. RESULTS: Adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy imaging revealed continuous cone mosaics up to the GA edge and overlying drusen, although reduced cone reflectivity often resulted in hyporeflective AOSLO signals at these locations. Baseline cone spacing measures were normal in 13/13 unaffected regions, 26/28 drusen regions, and 12/14 GA margin regions. Although standard clinical measures showed progression of GA in all study eyes, cone spacing remained within normal ranges in most drusen regions and all GA margin regions. CONCLUSIONS: Adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy provides adequate resolution for quantitative measurement of cone spacing at the margin of GA and over drusen in eyes with AMD. Although cone spacing was often normal at baseline and remained normal over time, these regions showed focal areas of decreased cone reflectivity. These findings may provide insight into the pathophysiology of AMD progression. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00254605).
PURPOSE: To evaluate cone spacing using adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (AOSLO) in eyes with nonneovascular AMD, and to correlate progression of AOSLO-derived cone measures with standard measures of macular structure. METHODS: Adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy images were obtained over 12 to 21 months from seven patients with AMD including four eyes with geographic atrophy (GA) and four eyes with drusen. Adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy images were overlaid with color, infrared, and autofluorescence fundus photographs and spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) images to allow direct correlation of cone parameters with macular structure. Cone spacing was measured for each visit in selected regions including areas over drusen (n = 29), at GA margins (n = 14), and regions without drusen or GA (n = 13) and compared with normal, age-similar values. RESULTS: Adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy imaging revealed continuous cone mosaics up to the GA edge and overlying drusen, although reduced cone reflectivity often resulted in hyporeflective AOSLO signals at these locations. Baseline cone spacing measures were normal in 13/13 unaffected regions, 26/28 drusen regions, and 12/14 GA margin regions. Although standard clinical measures showed progression of GA in all study eyes, cone spacing remained within normal ranges in most drusen regions and all GA margin regions. CONCLUSIONS: Adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy provides adequate resolution for quantitative measurement of cone spacing at the margin of GA and over drusen in eyes with AMD. Although cone spacing was often normal at baseline and remained normal over time, these regions showed focal areas of decreased cone reflectivity. These findings may provide insight into the pathophysiology of AMD progression. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00254605).
Authors: Stacey S Choi; Nathan Doble; Joseph L Hardy; Steven M Jones; John L Keltner; Scot S Olivier; John S Werner Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Steffen Schmitz-Valckenberg; Almut Bindewald-Wittich; Joanna Dolar-Szczasny; Jens Dreyhaupt; Sebastian Wolf; Hendrik P N Scholl; Frank G Holz Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Katherine E Talcott; Kavitha Ratnam; Sanna M Sundquist; Anna S Lucero; Brandon J Lujan; Weng Tao; Travis C Porco; Austin Roorda; Jacque L Duncan Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-04-06 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Kathrin I Hartmann; Maria L Gomez; Dirk-Uwe G Bartsch; Alexander K Schuster; William R Freeman Journal: Retina Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Jacque L Duncan; Yuhua Zhang; Jarel Gandhi; Chiaki Nakanishi; Mohammad Othman; Kari E H Branham; Anand Swaroop; Austin Roorda Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Manpreet Brar; Igor Kozak; Lingyun Cheng; Dirk-Uwe G Bartsch; Ritchie Yuson; Nitin Nigam; Stephen F Oster; Francesca Mojana; William R Freeman Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2009-07-09 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: K Yi; M Mujat; B H Park; W Sun; J W Miller; J M Seddon; L H Young; J F de Boer; T C Chen Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2008-08-12 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Danuta M Bukowska; Avenell L Chew; Emily Huynh; Irwin Kashani; Sue Ling Wan; Pak Ming Wan; Fred K Chen Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Jia Qin; Nicholas Rinella; Qinqin Zhang; Hao Zhou; Jessica Wong; Michael Deiner; Austin Roorda; Travis C Porco; Ruikang K Wang; Daniel M Schwartz; Jacque L Duncan Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2018-12-03 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Katie M Litts; Jeffrey D Messinger; K Bailey Freund; Yuhua Zhang; Christine A Curcio Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: David Alonso-Caneiro; Danuta M Sampson; Avenell L Chew; Michael J Collins; Fred K Chen Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2018-01-18 Impact factor: 3.732