Kaweh Mansouri1, Felipe A Medeiros2, Andrew J Tatham2, Nicholas Marchase2, Robert N Weinreb2. 1. Hamilton Glaucoma Center and Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California; Glaucoma Sector, Department of Ophthalmology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland. Electronic address: kawehm@yahoo.com. 2. Hamilton Glaucoma Center and Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the repeatability of automated retinal and choroidal thickness measurements with swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS OCT) and the frequency and type of scan artifacts. DESIGN: Prospective evaluation of new diagnostic technology. METHODS: Thirty healthy subjects were recruited prospectively and underwent imaging with a prototype SS OCT instrument. Undilated scans of 54 eyes of 27 subjects (mean age, 35.1 ± 9.3 years) were obtained. Each subject had 4 SS OCT protocols repeated 3 times: 3-dimensional (3D) 6 × 6-mm raster scan of the optic disc and macula, radial, and line scan. Automated measurements were obtained through segmentation software. Interscan repeatability was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: ICCs for choroidal measurements were 0.92, 0.98, 0.80, and 0.91, respectively, for 3D macula, 3D optic disc, radial, and line scans. ICCs for retinal measurements were 0.39, 0.49, 0.71, and 0.69, respectively. Artifacts were present in up to 9% scans. Signal loss because of blinking was the most common artifact on 3D scans (optic disc scan, 7%; macula scan, 9%), whereas segmentation failure occurred in 4% of radial and 3% of line scans. When scans with image artifacts were excluded, ICCs for choroidal thickness increased to 0.95, 0.99, 0.87, and 0.93 for 3D macula, 3D optic disc, radial, and line scans, respectively. ICCs for retinal thickness increased to 0.88, 0.83, 0.89, and 0.76, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Improved repeatability of automated choroidal and retinal thickness measurements was found with the SS OCT after correction of scan artifacts. Recognition of scan artifacts is important for correct interpretation of SS OCT measurements.
PURPOSE: To determine the repeatability of automated retinal and choroidal thickness measurements with swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS OCT) and the frequency and type of scan artifacts. DESIGN: Prospective evaluation of new diagnostic technology. METHODS: Thirty healthy subjects were recruited prospectively and underwent imaging with a prototype SS OCT instrument. Undilated scans of 54 eyes of 27 subjects (mean age, 35.1 ± 9.3 years) were obtained. Each subject had 4 SS OCT protocols repeated 3 times: 3-dimensional (3D) 6 × 6-mm raster scan of the optic disc and macula, radial, and line scan. Automated measurements were obtained through segmentation software. Interscan repeatability was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: ICCs for choroidal measurements were 0.92, 0.98, 0.80, and 0.91, respectively, for 3D macula, 3D optic disc, radial, and line scans. ICCs for retinal measurements were 0.39, 0.49, 0.71, and 0.69, respectively. Artifacts were present in up to 9% scans. Signal loss because of blinking was the most common artifact on 3D scans (optic disc scan, 7%; macula scan, 9%), whereas segmentation failure occurred in 4% of radial and 3% of line scans. When scans with image artifacts were excluded, ICCs for choroidal thickness increased to 0.95, 0.99, 0.87, and 0.93 for 3D macula, 3D optic disc, radial, and line scans, respectively. ICCs for retinal thickness increased to 0.88, 0.83, 0.89, and 0.76, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Improved repeatability of automated choroidal and retinal thickness measurements was found with the SS OCT after correction of scan artifacts. Recognition of scan artifacts is important for correct interpretation of SS OCT measurements.
Authors: Francisco Javier Lara Medina; Carmen Ispa Callén; Gema Rebolleda; Francisco J Muñoz-Negrete; María J Ispa Callén; Fernando González del Valle Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2011-10-11 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Lauren Branchini; Caio V Regatieri; Ignacio Flores-Moreno; Bernhard Baumann; James G Fujimoto; Jay S Duker Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2011-09-23 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Jean-Claude Mwanza; Jessica T Hochberg; Michael R Banitt; William J Feuer; Donald L Budenz Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-05-18 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Zhiyong Yang; Andrew J Tatham; Linda M Zangwill; Robert N Weinreb; Chunwei Zhang; Felipe A Medeiros Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2014-10-22 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Min Hee Suh; Linda M Zangwill; Patricia Isabel C Manalastas; Akram Belghith; Adeleh Yarmohammadi; Felipe A Medeiros; Alberto Diniz-Filho; Luke J Saunders; Robert N Weinreb Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2016-10-18 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Patricia I C Manalastas; Linda M Zangwill; Luke J Saunders; Kaweh Mansouri; Akram Belghith; Min Hee Suh; Adeleh Yarmohammadi; Rafaella C Penteado; Tadamichi Akagi; Takuhei Shoji; Robert N Weinreb Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Ana-Maria Philip; Bianca S Gerendas; Li Zhang; Henrik Faatz; Dominika Podkowinski; Hrvoje Bogunovic; Michael D Abramoff; Michael Hagmann; Roland Leitner; Christian Simader; Milan Sonka; Sebastian M Waldstein; Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2016-01-14 Impact factor: 4.638