| Literature DB >> 27547891 |
Mark Lane1, Eric M Moult2, Eduardo A Novais3, Ricardo N Louzada4, Emily D Cole5, ByungKun Lee2, Lennart Husvogt6, Pearse A Keane7, Alastair K Denniston8, André J Witkin5, Caroline R Baumal5, James G Fujimoto2, Jay S Duker5, Nadia K Waheed5.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the appearance of choriocapillaris (CC) flow under drusen by comparing long-wavelength (1050 nm) swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) angiography with shorter-wavelength (840 nm) spectral-domain (SD) OCT angiography.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27547891 PMCID: PMC4995042 DOI: 10.1167/iovs.15-18915
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci ISSN: 0146-0404 Impact factor: 4.799
Figure 1Example of OCTA signal loss on both the SD-OCT and SS-OCT systems. Note that this figure is intended to illustrate the differences in the SD-OCTA and SS-OCTA images and is not intended to describe the grading process itself. (A) Fundus photograph. (B) En face SS-OCTA CC slab. (C) En face SS-OCT CC slab. (D) Swept-source OCT B-scan extracted from the dashed line in (C). (E) En face SD-OCTA CC slab. (F) En face SD-OCT CC slab. The dashed box in (A) indicates the 3 × 3 mm field of view over which the SS-OCT and SD-OCT scans were acquired. In (D), a representative druse is denoted with an asterisk. The dashed contour in (E) highlights an area of OCTA signal loss underlying this drusen. The same contour has been superposed on images B, C, and F. Note that there is an area of SS-OCTA signal loss, indicated by the arrowhead in (B). Since the corresponding region in (C) does not exhibit low OCT signal, we classified the SS-OCTA signal loss in (B) as unambiguous. Since the dashed contour in (F) encircles a region of low SD-OCT signal, we classified the SD-OCTA signal loss in (E) as being ambiguous. Finally, neither the SD-OCTA nor the SS-OCTA is classified as having false-positive flow impairment.
Figure 2Example of OCTA signal loss on the SD-OCT system, and no OCTA signal loss on the SS-OCT system. Note that this figure is intended to illustrate the differences in the SD-OCTA and SS-OCTA images, and is not intended to describe the grading process itself. (A) Fundus photograph. (B) En face SS-OCTA CC slab. (C) En face SS-OCT CC slab. (D) Swept-source OCT B-scan extracted from the dashed line in (C). (E) En face SD-OCTA CC slab. (F) En face SD-OCT CC slab. The dashed box in (A) indicates the 3 × 3 mm field of view over which the SS-OCT and SD-OCT scans were acquired. In (D), a representative druse is denoted with an asterisk. The dashed contour in (E) highlights an area of OCTA signal loss underlying this drusen. The same contour has been superposed on images B, C, and F. Note that there is no SS-OCTA signal loss within the dashed contour of (B). Since the dashed contour in (F) encircles a region of low SD-OCT signal, we classified the SD-OCTA signal loss in (E) as being ambiguous. Finally, since there is no SS-OCTA loss in (B), we classified the SD-OCTA image as having false-positive flow impairment under this druse.