Flore De Bats1, Thibaud Mathis, Martine Mauget-Faÿsse, Fabien Joubert, Philippe Denis, Laurent Kodjikian. 1. *Department of Ophthalmology, Croix-Rousse University Hospital, Hospices Civils de Lyon, UMR-CNRS 5510 Matéis, University of Medicine Lyon 1, Lyon, France; †Pôle Vision, Clinique du Val d'ouest, Ecully, France; ‡Professor Sahel Department, Rothschild Ophthalmologic Foundation, Paris, France; and §Department of Medical Information and Epidemiology, Le Vinatier Hospital, University of Medicine Lyon 1, Bron, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the rate of reticular pseudodrusen (RPD) in age-related macular degeneration using multimodal imaging, including color fundus photography, the blue channel image of fundus photography, infrared reflectance, fundus autofluorescence, multicolor imaging, and spectral domain optical coherence tomography, as well as to compare the sensitivities and specificities of these modalities for detecting RPD. METHODS: This prospective study included 243 eyes from 125 consecutive patients with age-related macular degeneration. They underwent fundus examination including color fundus photography, blue channel, infrared reflectance, fundus autofluorescence, multicolor imaging, and spectral domain optical coherence tomography in both eyes. To be considered as having RPD, eyes had to have reticular patterns on spectral domain optical coherence tomography in a large studied cube of 30° × 25° or on infrared reflectance with at least one other examination. RESULTS: The mean age of the 125 patients was 81.1 years (± 8.1). Eighty-six patients (68.8%) were diagnosed with RPD. Spectral domain optical coherence tomography, infrared reflectance, and multicolor imaging had the highest sensitivity (99.3, 84.6, and 87.1%, respectively) and specificity (100%). The color fundus photography, blue channel, and fundus autofluorescence had lower sensitivity to detect RPD. CONCLUSION: Reticular pseudodrusen is frequently associated with soft drusen in patients with age-related macular degeneration. As RPD may be rarely located only in the perifoveal area, spectral domain optical coherence tomography with a larger cube (30 × 25°) than that usually used (20 × 20°) had the highest sensitivity and specificity to detect RPD and is recommended to optimize the rate of detection.
PURPOSE: To determine the rate of reticular pseudodrusen (RPD) in age-related macular degeneration using multimodal imaging, including color fundus photography, the blue channel image of fundus photography, infrared reflectance, fundus autofluorescence, multicolor imaging, and spectral domain optical coherence tomography, as well as to compare the sensitivities and specificities of these modalities for detecting RPD. METHODS: This prospective study included 243 eyes from 125 consecutive patients with age-related macular degeneration. They underwent fundus examination including color fundus photography, blue channel, infrared reflectance, fundus autofluorescence, multicolor imaging, and spectral domain optical coherence tomography in both eyes. To be considered as having RPD, eyes had to have reticular patterns on spectral domain optical coherence tomography in a large studied cube of 30° × 25° or on infrared reflectance with at least one other examination. RESULTS: The mean age of the 125 patients was 81.1 years (± 8.1). Eighty-six patients (68.8%) were diagnosed with RPD. Spectral domain optical coherence tomography, infrared reflectance, and multicolor imaging had the highest sensitivity (99.3, 84.6, and 87.1%, respectively) and specificity (100%). The color fundus photography, blue channel, and fundus autofluorescence had lower sensitivity to detect RPD. CONCLUSION: Reticular pseudodrusen is frequently associated with soft drusen in patients with age-related macular degeneration. As RPD may be rarely located only in the perifoveal area, spectral domain optical coherence tomography with a larger cube (30 × 25°) than that usually used (20 × 20°) had the highest sensitivity and specificity to detect RPD and is recommended to optimize the rate of detection.
Authors: Anna V Zarubina; David C Neely; Mark E Clark; Carrie E Huisingh; Brian C Samuels; Yuhua Zhang; Gerald McGwin; Cynthia Owsley; Christine A Curcio Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Jaclyn L Kovach; Stephen G Schwartz; Anita Agarwal; Milam A Brantley; Samuel S Pan; Jonathan L Haines; William K Scott; Margaret A Pericak-Vance Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2015-12-08 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Anna V Zarubina; David C Neely; Mark E Clark; Carrie E Huisingh; Brian C Samuels; Yuhua Zhang; Gerald McGwin; Cynthia Owsley; Christine A Curcio Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Shyamanga Borooah; Vasileios Papastavrou; Leonardo Lando; Jonathan Han; Jonathan H Lin; Radha Ayyagari; Baljean Dhillon; Andrew C Browning Journal: Ophthalmol Retina Date: 2020-12-22
Authors: Muneeswar G Nittala; Yeunjoo E Song; Rebecca Sardell; Larry D Adams; Samuel Pan; Swetha B Velaga; Violet Horst; Debra Dana; Laura Caywood; Renee Laux; Denise Fuzzell; Sarada Fuzzell; William K Scott; Jessica N Cooke Bailey; Robert P Igo; Jonathan Haines; Margaret A Pericak-Vance; SriniVas R Sadda; Dwight Stambolian Journal: Retina Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 3.975
Authors: Spencer C Cleland; Amitha Domalpally; Zhe Liu; Jeong W Pak; Barbara A Blodi; Steven Bailey; Karen Gehrs; Robert Wallace; Lesley Tinker; Julie A Mares Journal: Ophthalmol Retina Date: 2020-12-30