Ana-Maria Philip1, Bianca S Gerendas1, Li Zhang2, Henrik Faatz1, Dominika Podkowinski1, Hrvoje Bogunovic3, Michael D Abramoff4, Michael Hagmann5, Roland Leitner1, Christian Simader1, Milan Sonka2, Sebastian M Waldstein1, Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth1. 1. Christian Doppler Laboratory for Ophthalmic Image Analysis, Department of ophthalmology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 2. Iowa Institute for Biomedical Imaging, L300 Pappajohn Biomedical Discovery Building, Iowa City, Iowa, USA. 3. Christian Doppler Laboratory for Ophthalmic Image Analysis, Department of ophthalmology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria Iowa Institute for Biomedical Imaging, L300 Pappajohn Biomedical Discovery Building, Iowa City, Iowa, USA. 4. Iowa Institute for Biomedical Imaging, L300 Pappajohn Biomedical Discovery Building, Iowa City, Iowa, USA Stephen R Wynn Institute for Vision Research, Iowa City, Iowa, USA. 5. Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics, and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The purpose of the study was to create a standardised protocol for choroidal thickness measurements and to determine whether choroidal thickness measurements made on images obtained by spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) and swept source (SS-) OCT from patients with healthy retina are interchangeable when performed manually or with an automatic algorithm. METHODS: 36 grid cell measurements for choroidal thickness for each volumetric scan were obtained, which were measured for SD-OCT and SS-OCT with two methods on 18 eyes of healthy volunteers. Manual segmentation by experienced retinal graders from the Vienna Reading Center and automated segmentation on >6300 images of the choroid from both devices were statistically compared. RESULTS: Model-based comparison between SD-OCT/SS-OCT showed a systematic difference in choroidal thickness of 16.26±0.725 μm (p<0.001) for manual segmentation and 21.55±0.725 μm (p<0.001) for automated segmentation. Comparison of automated with manual segmentations revealed small differences in thickness of -0.68±0.513 μm (p=0.1833). The correlation coefficients for SD-OCT and SS-OCT measures within eyes were 0.975 for manual segmentation and 0.955 for automatic segmentation. CONCLUSION: Choroidal thickness measurements of SD-OCT and SS-OCT indicate that these two devices are interchangeable with a trend of choroidal thickness measurements being slightly thicker on SD-OCT with limited clinical relevance. Use of an automated algorithm to segment choroidal thickness was validated in healthy volunteers. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The purpose of the study was to create a standardised protocol for choroidal thickness measurements and to determine whether choroidal thickness measurements made on images obtained by spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) and swept source (SS-) OCT from patients with healthy retina are interchangeable when performed manually or with an automatic algorithm. METHODS: 36 grid cell measurements for choroidal thickness for each volumetric scan were obtained, which were measured for SD-OCT and SS-OCT with two methods on 18 eyes of healthy volunteers. Manual segmentation by experienced retinal graders from the Vienna Reading Center and automated segmentation on >6300 images of the choroid from both devices were statistically compared. RESULTS: Model-based comparison between SD-OCT/SS-OCT showed a systematic difference in choroidal thickness of 16.26±0.725 μm (p<0.001) for manual segmentation and 21.55±0.725 μm (p<0.001) for automated segmentation. Comparison of automated with manual segmentations revealed small differences in thickness of -0.68±0.513 μm (p=0.1833). The correlation coefficients for SD-OCT and SS-OCT measures within eyes were 0.975 for manual segmentation and 0.955 for automatic segmentation. CONCLUSION: Choroidal thickness measurements of SD-OCT and SS-OCT indicate that these two devices are interchangeable with a trend of choroidal thickness measurements being slightly thicker on SD-OCT with limited clinical relevance. Use of an automated algorithm to segment choroidal thickness was validated in healthy volunteers. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Authors: Lauren Branchini; Caio V Regatieri; Ignacio Flores-Moreno; Bernhard Baumann; James G Fujimoto; Jay S Duker Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2011-09-23 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Bianca S Gerendas; Sebastian M Waldstein; Christian Simader; Gabor Deak; Bilal Hajnajeeb; Li Zhang; Hrvoje Bogunovic; Michael D Abramoff; Michael Kundi; Milan Sonka; Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2014-08-12 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Elliott H Sohn; Aditi Khanna; Budd A Tucker; Michael D Abràmoff; Edwin M Stone; Robert F Mullins Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Vivian S Vuong; Elad Moisseiev; David Cunefare; Sina Farsiu; Ala Moshiri; Glenn Yiu Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Fang Zheng; Giovanni Gregori; Karen B Schaal; Andrew D Legarreta; Andrew R Miller; Luiz Roisman; William J Feuer; Philip J Rosenfeld Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Helena Giannakaki-Zimmermann; Wolfgang Huf; Karen B Schaal; Kaspar Schürch; Chantal Dysli; Muriel Dysli; Anita Zenger; Lala Ceklic; Carlos Ciller; Stephanos Apostolopoulos; Sandro De Zanet; Raphael Sznitman; Andreas Ebneter; Martin S Zinkernagel; Sebastian Wolf; Marion R Munk Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Matthias F Kriegel; Jessica Loo; Sina Farsiu; Venkatesh Prajna; Megan Tuohy; Kyeong Hwan Kim; Autumn N Valicevic; Leslie M Niziol; Huan Tan; Hamza A Ashfaq; Dena Ballouz; Maria A Woodward Journal: Cornea Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 3.152
Authors: Jason Kugelman; David Alonso-Caneiro; Scott A Read; Jared Hamwood; Stephen J Vincent; Fred K Chen; Michael J Collins Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-09-16 Impact factor: 4.379