Ehsan Rahimy1, Nadim Rayess1, Joseph I Maguire1, Jason Hsu2. 1. Mid Atlantic Retina, The Retina Service of Wills Eye Hospital, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2. Mid Atlantic Retina, The Retina Service of Wills Eye Hospital, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: jhsu@midatlanticretina.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the 6-line radial vs the 25-line raster spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD OCT) acquisition patterns at detecting intraretinal fluid, subretinal fluid, vitreomacular traction, and full-thickness macular hole (MH). DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis. METHODS: Series of 365 eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetic macular edema (DME), central and branch retinal vein occlusion (CRVO/BRVO), central serous chorioretinopathy, vitreomacular traction, and full-thickness MH. Sequential 6-line radial and 25-line raster scans were evaluated for intraretinal/subretinal fluid and, when applicable, vitreomacular traction and MH. RESULTS: For neovascular AMD (133 scans), 7 25-line raster scans confirmed subretinal/intraretinal fluid not identified by the 6-line radial (P=.02). For DME (140 scans) and central serous chorioretinopathy (91 scans), 25-line raster confirmed fluid in 4 scans (P=.13) and 1 scan (P=.32), respectively, that was not observed with the 6-line radial. For CRVO (123 scans) and BRVO (126 scans), 25-line raster confirmed fluid on 2 (P=.25) and 4 scans (P=.13), respectively, that was not detected by the 6-line radial. Conversely, for focal vitreomacular traction (70 scans) and full-thickness MH (82 scans), 25-line raster missed focal traction (<1500 μm) and MH in 5 scans (P=.07) and 7 scans (P=.02), respectively, that were identified using the 6-line radial. CONCLUSIONS: The 6-line radial scan is statistically comparable to the 25-line raster at detecting fluid in DME, BRVO/CRVO, and central serous chorioretinopathy, but not neovascular AMD. Furthermore, it is superior to the 25-line raster pattern at detecting early MH formation, while demonstrating a positive trend in identifying focal vitreomacular traction.
PURPOSE: To compare the 6-line radial vs the 25-line raster spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD OCT) acquisition patterns at detecting intraretinal fluid, subretinal fluid, vitreomacular traction, and full-thickness macular hole (MH). DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis. METHODS: Series of 365 eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetic macular edema (DME), central and branch retinal vein occlusion (CRVO/BRVO), central serous chorioretinopathy, vitreomacular traction, and full-thickness MH. Sequential 6-line radial and 25-line raster scans were evaluated for intraretinal/subretinal fluid and, when applicable, vitreomacular traction and MH. RESULTS: For neovascular AMD (133 scans), 7 25-line raster scans confirmed subretinal/intraretinal fluid not identified by the 6-line radial (P=.02). For DME (140 scans) and central serous chorioretinopathy (91 scans), 25-line raster confirmed fluid in 4 scans (P=.13) and 1 scan (P=.32), respectively, that was not observed with the 6-line radial. For CRVO (123 scans) and BRVO (126 scans), 25-line raster confirmed fluid on 2 (P=.25) and 4 scans (P=.13), respectively, that was not detected by the 6-line radial. Conversely, for focal vitreomacular traction (70 scans) and full-thickness MH (82 scans), 25-line raster missed focal traction (<1500 μm) and MH in 5 scans (P=.07) and 7 scans (P=.02), respectively, that were identified using the 6-line radial. CONCLUSIONS: The 6-line radial scan is statistically comparable to the 25-line raster at detecting fluid in DME, BRVO/CRVO, and central serous chorioretinopathy, but not neovascular AMD. Furthermore, it is superior to the 25-line raster pattern at detecting early MH formation, while demonstrating a positive trend in identifying focal vitreomacular traction.
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