BACKGROUND: To investigate the image quality of wide-angle cross-sectional and reconstructed fundus images based on ultra-megahertz swept-source Fourier domain mode locking (FDML) OCT compared to current generation diagnostic devices. METHODS: A 1,050 nm swept-source FDML OCT system was constructed running at 1.68 MHz A-scan rate covering approximately 70° field of view. Twelve normal eyes were imaged with the device applying an isotropically dense sampling protocol (1,900 × 1,900 A-scans) with a fill factor of 100 %. Obtained OCT scan image quality was compared with two commercial OCT systems (Heidelberg Spectralis and Stratus OCT) of the same 12 eyes. Reconstructed en-face fundus images from the same FDML-OCT data set were compared to color fundus, infrared and ultra-wide-field scanning laser images (SLO). RESULTS: Comparison of cross-sectional scans showed a high overall image quality of the 15× averaged FDML images at 1.68 MHz [overall quality grading score: 8.42 ± 0.52, range 0 (bad)-10 (excellent)] comparable to current spectral-domain OCTs (overall quality grading score: 8.83 ± 0.39, p = 0.731). On FDML OCT, a dense 3D data set was obtained covering also the central and mid-peripheral retina. The reconstructed FDML OCT en-face fundus images had high image quality comparable to scanning laser ophthalmoscope (SLO) as judged from retinal structures such as vessels and optic disc. Overall grading score was 8.36 ± 0.51 for FDML OCT vs 8.27 ± 0.65 for SLO (p = 0.717). CONCLUSIONS: Ultra-wide-field megahertz 3D FDML OCT at 1.68 MHz is feasible, and provides cross-sectional image quality comparable to current spectral-domain OCT devices. In addition, reconstructed en-face visualization of fundus images result in a wide-field view with high image quality as compared to currently available fundus imaging devices. The improvement of >30× in imaging speed over commercial spectral-domain OCT technology enables high-density scan protocols leading to a data set for high quality cross-sectional and en-face images of the posterior segment.
BACKGROUND: To investigate the image quality of wide-angle cross-sectional and reconstructed fundus images based on ultra-megahertz swept-source Fourier domain mode locking (FDML) OCT compared to current generation diagnostic devices. METHODS: A 1,050 nm swept-source FDML OCT system was constructed running at 1.68 MHz A-scan rate covering approximately 70° field of view. Twelve normal eyes were imaged with the device applying an isotropically dense sampling protocol (1,900 × 1,900 A-scans) with a fill factor of 100 %. Obtained OCT scan image quality was compared with two commercial OCT systems (Heidelberg Spectralis and Stratus OCT) of the same 12 eyes. Reconstructed en-face fundus images from the same FDML-OCT data set were compared to color fundus, infrared and ultra-wide-field scanning laser images (SLO). RESULTS: Comparison of cross-sectional scans showed a high overall image quality of the 15× averaged FDML images at 1.68 MHz [overall quality grading score: 8.42 ± 0.52, range 0 (bad)-10 (excellent)] comparable to current spectral-domain OCTs (overall quality grading score: 8.83 ± 0.39, p = 0.731). On FDML OCT, a dense 3D data set was obtained covering also the central and mid-peripheral retina. The reconstructed FDML OCT en-face fundus images had high image quality comparable to scanning laser ophthalmoscope (SLO) as judged from retinal structures such as vessels and optic disc. Overall grading score was 8.36 ± 0.51 for FDML OCT vs 8.27 ± 0.65 for SLO (p = 0.717). CONCLUSIONS: Ultra-wide-field megahertz 3D FDML OCT at 1.68 MHz is feasible, and provides cross-sectional image quality comparable to current spectral-domain OCT devices. In addition, reconstructed en-face visualization of fundus images result in a wide-field view with high image quality as compared to currently available fundus imaging devices. The improvement of >30× in imaging speed over commercial spectral-domain OCT technology enables high-density scan protocols leading to a data set for high quality cross-sectional and en-face images of the posterior segment.
Authors: Mark E Clark; Gerald McGwin; David Neely; Richard Feist; John O Mason; Martin Thomley; Milton F White; Bunyamin Ozaydin; Christopher A Girkin; Cynthia Owsley Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2011-02-02 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Rupert W Strauss; Tina R Krieglstein; Siegfried G Priglinger; Werner Reis; Michael W Ulbig; Anselm Kampik; Aljoscha S Neubauer Journal: Ophthalmic Physiol Opt Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 3.117
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: Thomas Klein; Wolfgang Wieser; Christoph M Eigenwillig; Benjamin R Biedermann; Robert Huber Journal: Opt Express Date: 2011-02-14 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: David M Brown; Peter K Kaiser; Mark Michels; Gisele Soubrane; Jeffrey S Heier; Robert Y Kim; Judy P Sy; Susan Schneider Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-10-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ute E K Wolf-Schnurrbusch; Lala Ceklic; Christian K Brinkmann; Milko E Iliev; Manuel Frey; Simon P Rothenbuehler; Volker Enzmann; Sebastian Wolf Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2009-02-21 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: I Gorczynska; V J Srinivasan; L N Vuong; R W S Chen; J J Liu; E Reichel; M Wojtkowski; J S Schuman; J S Duker; J G Fujimoto Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2008-07-28 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Andre J Witkin; Laurel N Vuong; Vivek J Srinivasan; Iwona Gorczynska; Elias Reichel; Caroline R Baumal; Adam H Rogers; Joel S Schuman; James G Fujimoto; Jay S Duker Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Kathrin J Mohler; Wolfgang Draxinger; Thomas Klein; Jan Philip Kolb; Wolfgang Wieser; Christos Haritoglou; Anselm Kampik; James G Fujimoto; Aljoscha S Neubauer; Robert Huber; Armin Wolf Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Ryan P McNabb; Dilraj S Grewal; Rajvi Mehta; Stefanie G Schuman; Joseph A Izatt; Tamer H Mahmoud; Glenn J Jaffe; Prithvi Mruthyunjaya; Anthony N Kuo Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2016-01-11 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Joseph D Malone; Mohamed T El-Haddad; Ivan Bozic; Logan A Tye; Lucas Majeau; Nicolas Godbout; Andrew M Rollins; Caroline Boudoux; Karen M Joos; Shriji N Patel; Yuankai K Tao Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2016-12-12 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: James Polans; Brenton Keller; Oscar M Carrasco-Zevallos; Francesco LaRocca; Elijah Cole; Heather E Whitson; Eleonora M Lad; Sina Farsiu; Joseph A Izatt Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2016-12-02 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Elena F Brachtel; Nicole B Johnson; Amelia E Huck; Travis L Rice-Stitt; Mark G Vangel; Barbara L Smith; Guillermo J Tearney; Dongkyun Kang Journal: Lab Invest Date: 2016-01-18 Impact factor: 5.662
Authors: Lukas Reznicek; Jan P Kolb; Thomas Klein; Kathrin J Mohler; Wolfgang Wieser; Robert Huber; Marcus Kernt; Josef Märtz; Aljoscha S Neubauer Journal: J Diabetes Res Date: 2015-07-27 Impact factor: 4.011
Authors: Josef Maertz; Jan Philip Kolb; Thomas Klein; Kathrin J Mohler; Matthias Eibl; Wolfgang Wieser; Robert Huber; Siegfried Priglinger; Armin Wolf Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 3.117