BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To compare fundus autofluorescence (FAF) imaging via fundus camera (FC) and confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope (cSLO). PATIENTS AND METHODS: FAF images were obtained with a digital FC (530 to 580 nm excitation) and a cSLO (488 nm excitation). Two authors evaluated correlation of autofluorescence pattern, atrophic lesion size, and image quality between the two devices. RESULTS: In 120 eyes, the autofluorescence pattern correlated in 86% of lesions. By lesion subtype, correlation rates were 100% in hemorrhage, 97% in geographic atrophy, 82% in flecks, 75% in drusen, 70% in exudates, 67% in pigment epithelial detachment, 50% in fibrous scars, and 33% in macular hole. The mean lesion size in geographic atrophy was 4.57 ± 2.3 mm(2) via cSLO and 3.81 ± 1.94 mm(2) via FC (P < .0001). Image quality favored cSLO in 71 eyes. CONCLUSION: FAF images were highly correlated between the FC and cSLO. Differences between the two devices revealed contrasts. Multiple image capture and confocal optics yielded higher image contrast with the cSLO, although acquisition and exposure time was longer. Copyright 2013, SLACK Incorporated.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To compare fundus autofluorescence (FAF) imaging via fundus camera (FC) and confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope (cSLO). PATIENTS AND METHODS: FAF images were obtained with a digital FC (530 to 580 nm excitation) and a cSLO (488 nm excitation). Two authors evaluated correlation of autofluorescence pattern, atrophic lesion size, and image quality between the two devices. RESULTS: In 120 eyes, the autofluorescence pattern correlated in 86% of lesions. By lesion subtype, correlation rates were 100% in hemorrhage, 97% in geographic atrophy, 82% in flecks, 75% in drusen, 70% in exudates, 67% in pigment epithelial detachment, 50% in fibrous scars, and 33% in macular hole. The mean lesion size in geographic atrophy was 4.57 ± 2.3 mm(2) via cSLO and 3.81 ± 1.94 mm(2) via FC (P < .0001). Image quality favored cSLO in 71 eyes. CONCLUSION: FAF images were highly correlated between the FC and cSLO. Differences between the two devices revealed contrasts. Multiple image capture and confocal optics yielded higher image contrast with the cSLO, although acquisition and exposure time was longer. Copyright 2013, SLACK Incorporated.
Authors: Steffen Schmitz-Valckenberg; Monika Fleckenstein; Arno P Göbel; Kulwant Sehmi; Frederick W Fitzke; Frank G Holz; Adnan Tufail Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2008-06-02 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: A C Bird; N M Bressler; S B Bressler; I H Chisholm; G Coscas; M D Davis; P T de Jong; C C Klaver; B E Klein; R Klein Journal: Surv Ophthalmol Date: 1995 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 6.048
Authors: Artur V Cideciyan; Malgorzata Swider; Tomas S Aleman; Marisa I Roman; Alexander Sumaroka; Sharon B Schwartz; Edwin M Stone; Samuel G Jacobson Journal: J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.129
Authors: Tatiana B Feldman; Marina A Yakovleva; Andrey V Larichev; Patimat M Arbukhanova; Alexandra Sh Radchenko; Sergey A Borzenok; Vladimir A Kuzmin; Mikhail A Ostrovsky Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2018-05-22 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Mohammed Salah Eldin Abdelbaky; Tarek Ahmad El Mamoun; Fatma Ibrahim Mabrouk; Rasha Mohamad Hassan Journal: Egypt J Intern Med Date: 2021-06-08