PURPOSE: To evaluate the quantitative and topographic relationship between reticular pseudodrusen (RPD) on infrared reflectance (IR) and subretinal drusenoid deposits (SDD) on en face volumetric spectral domain optical coherence tomography. METHODS: Reticular pseudodrusen were marked on IR images by a masked observer. Subretinal drusenoid deposits were visualized on en face sections of spectral domain optical coherence tomography below the external limiting membrane and identified by a semiautomated technique. Control RPD lesions were generated in a random distribution for each IR image. Binary maps of control and experimental RPD and SDD were merged and analyzed in terms of topographic localization and quantitative drusen load comparison. RESULTS: A total of 54 eyes of 41 patients diagnosed with RPD were included in this study. The average number of RPD lesions on IR images was 320 ± 44.62 compared with 127 ± 26.02 SDD lesions on en face (P < 0.001). The majority of RPD lesions did not overlap with SDD lesions and were located >30 μm away (92%). The percentage of total SDD lesions overlapping RPD was 2.91 ± 0.87% compared with 1.73 ± 0.68% overlapping control RPD lesions (P < 0.05). The percentage of total SDD lesions between 1 and 3 pixels of the nearest RPD lesion was 5.08 ± 1.40% compared with 3.33 ± 1.07% between 1 and 3 pixels of the nearest control RPD lesion (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study identified significantly more RPD lesions on IR compared with SDD lesions on en face spectral domain optical coherence tomography and found that a large majority of SDD (>90% of lesions) were >30 μm away from the nearest RPD. Together, our findings indicate that RPD and SDD are two entities that are only occasionally topographically associated, suggesting that at some stage in their development, they may be pathologically related.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the quantitative and topographic relationship between reticular pseudodrusen (RPD) on infrared reflectance (IR) and subretinal drusenoid deposits (SDD) on en face volumetric spectral domain optical coherence tomography. METHODS: Reticular pseudodrusen were marked on IR images by a masked observer. Subretinal drusenoid deposits were visualized on en face sections of spectral domain optical coherence tomography below the external limiting membrane and identified by a semiautomated technique. Control RPD lesions were generated in a random distribution for each IR image. Binary maps of control and experimental RPD and SDD were merged and analyzed in terms of topographic localization and quantitative drusen load comparison. RESULTS: A total of 54 eyes of 41 patients diagnosed with RPD were included in this study. The average number of RPD lesions on IR images was 320 ± 44.62 compared with 127 ± 26.02 SDD lesions on en face (P < 0.001). The majority of RPD lesions did not overlap with SDD lesions and were located >30 μm away (92%). The percentage of total SDD lesions overlapping RPD was 2.91 ± 0.87% compared with 1.73 ± 0.68% overlapping control RPD lesions (P < 0.05). The percentage of total SDD lesions between 1 and 3 pixels of the nearest RPD lesion was 5.08 ± 1.40% compared with 3.33 ± 1.07% between 1 and 3 pixels of the nearest control RPD lesion (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study identified significantly more RPD lesions on IR compared with SDD lesions on en face spectral domain optical coherence tomography and found that a large majority of SDD (>90% of lesions) were >30 μm away from the nearest RPD. Together, our findings indicate that RPD and SDD are two entities that are only occasionally topographically associated, suggesting that at some stage in their development, they may be pathologically related.
Authors: R Theodore Smith; Jackie K Chan; Mihai Busuoic; Vasuki Sivagnanavel; Alan C Bird; N Victor Chong Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: David S Friedman; Benita J O'Colmain; Beatriz Muñoz; Sandra C Tomany; Cathy McCarty; Paulus T V M de Jong; Barbara Nemesure; Paul Mitchell; John Kempen Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2004-04
Authors: Martin Rudolf; Goldis Malek; Jeffrey D Messinger; Mark E Clark; Lan Wang; Christine A Curcio Journal: Exp Eye Res Date: 2008-08-03 Impact factor: 3.467
Authors: Alessandro Rabiolo; Riccardo Sacconi; Maria Vittoria Cicinelli; Lea Querques; Francesco Bandello; Giuseppe Querques Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2017-09-20
Authors: Danuta M Sampson; David Alonso-Caneiro; Avenell L Chew; Tina Lamey; Terri McLaren; John De Roach; Fred K Chen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-12-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Glenn Yiu; Eric Tieu; Christian Munevar; Brittany Wong; David Cunefare; Sina Farsiu; Laura Garzel; Jeffrey Roberts; Sara M Thomasy Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-11-03 Impact factor: 4.379