Donald C Hood1, Monica F Chen2, Dongwon Lee2, Benjamin Epstein2, Paula Alhadeff3, Richard B Rosen4, Robert Ritch4, Alfredo Dubra5, Toco Y P Chui4. 1. Departments of Psychology and Ophthalmology, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA. 2. Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA. 3. New York Eye and Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, New York Eye and Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA, and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA. 5. Departments of Ophthalmology and Biophysics, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To improve our understanding of glaucomatous damage as seen on circumpapillary disc scans obtained with frequency-domain optical coherence tomography (fdOCT), fdOCT scans were compared to images of the peripapillary retinal nerve fiber (RNF) bundles obtained with an adaptive optics-scanning light ophthalmoscope (AO-SLO). METHODS: The AO-SLO images and fdOCT scans were obtained on 6 eyes of 6 patients with deep arcuate defects (5 points ≤-15 db) on 10-2 visual fields. The AO-SLO images were montaged and aligned with the fdOCT images to compare the RNF bundles seen with AO-SLO to the RNF layer thickness measured with fdOCT. RESULTS: All 6 eyes had an abnormally thin (1% confidence limit) RNF layer (RNFL) on fdOCT and abnormal (hyporeflective) regions of RNF bundles on AO-SLO in corresponding regions. However, regions of abnormal, but equal, RNFL thickness on fdOCT scans varied in appearance on AO-SLO images. These regions could be largely devoid of RNF bundles (5 eyes), have abnormal-appearing bundles of lower contrast (6 eyes), or have isolated areas with a few relatively normal-appearing bundles (2 eyes). There also were local variations in reflectivity of the fdOCT RNFL that corresponded to the variations in AO-SLO RNF bundle appearance. CONCLUSIONS: Relatively similar 10-2 defects with similar fdOCT RNFL thickness profiles can have very different degrees of RNF bundle damage as seen on fdOCT and AO-SLO. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: While the results point to limitations of fdOCT RNFL thickness as typically analyzed, they also illustrate the potential for improving fdOCT by attending to variations in local intensity.
PURPOSE: To improve our understanding of glaucomatous damage as seen on circumpapillary disc scans obtained with frequency-domain optical coherence tomography (fdOCT), fdOCT scans were compared to images of the peripapillary retinal nerve fiber (RNF) bundles obtained with an adaptive optics-scanning light ophthalmoscope (AO-SLO). METHODS: The AO-SLO images and fdOCT scans were obtained on 6 eyes of 6 patients with deep arcuate defects (5 points ≤-15 db) on 10-2 visual fields. The AO-SLO images were montaged and aligned with the fdOCT images to compare the RNF bundles seen with AO-SLO to the RNF layer thickness measured with fdOCT. RESULTS: All 6 eyes had an abnormally thin (1% confidence limit) RNF layer (RNFL) on fdOCT and abnormal (hyporeflective) regions of RNF bundles on AO-SLO in corresponding regions. However, regions of abnormal, but equal, RNFL thickness on fdOCT scans varied in appearance on AO-SLO images. These regions could be largely devoid of RNF bundles (5 eyes), have abnormal-appearing bundles of lower contrast (6 eyes), or have isolated areas with a few relatively normal-appearing bundles (2 eyes). There also were local variations in reflectivity of the fdOCT RNFL that corresponded to the variations in AO-SLO RNF bundle appearance. CONCLUSIONS: Relatively similar 10-2 defects with similar fdOCT RNFL thickness profiles can have very different degrees of RNF bundle damage as seen on fdOCT and AO-SLO. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: While the results point to limitations of fdOCT RNFL thickness as typically analyzed, they also illustrate the potential for improving fdOCT by attending to variations in local intensity.
Authors: Monica F Chen; Toco Y P Chui; Paula Alhadeff; Richard B Rosen; Robert Ritch; Alfredo Dubra; Donald C Hood Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-01-08 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Daiyan Xin; Christine L Talamini; Ali S Raza; Carlos Gustavo V de Moraes; Vivienne C Greenstein; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Robert Ritch; Donald C Hood Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-09-09 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Drew Scoles; Brian P Higgins; Robert F Cooper; Adam M Dubis; Phyllis Summerfelt; David V Weinberg; Judy E Kim; Kimberly E Stepien; Joseph Carroll; Alfredo Dubra Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-06-03 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Donald C Hood; Ali S Raza; Carlos G De Moraes; Paula A Alhadeff; Juliet Idiga; Dana M Blumberg; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Robert Ritch Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Donald C Hood; Brad Fortune; Maria A Mavrommatis; Juan Reynaud; Rithambara Ramachandran; Robert Ritch; Richard B Rosen; Hassan Muhammad; Alfredo Dubra; Toco Y P Chui Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Christopher Kai Shun Leung; Alexander Ka Ngai Lam; Robert Neal Weinreb; David F Garway-Heath; Marco Yu; Philip Yawen Guo; Vivian Sheung Man Chiu; Kelvin Ho Nam Wan; Mandy Wong; Ken Zhongheng Wu; Carol Yim Lui Cheung; Chen Lin; Carmen Kar Mun Chan; Noel Ching Yan Chan; Ka Wai Kam; Gilda Wing Ki Lai Journal: Nat Biomed Eng Date: 2022-01-06 Impact factor: 25.671
Authors: Mark Christopher; Christopher Bowd; Akram Belghith; Michael H Goldbaum; Robert N Weinreb; Massimo A Fazio; Christopher A Girkin; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Linda M Zangwill Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2019-09-30 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Gala Beykin; Anthony M Norcia; Vivek J Srinivasan; Alfredo Dubra; Jeffrey L Goldberg Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2020-07-10 Impact factor: 21.198