P Nelis1, F Alten2, C R Clemens2, P Heiduschka2, N Eter2. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Muenster Medical Center, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Building D15, 48149, Muenster, Germany. pieter.nelis@ukmuenster.de. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Muenster Medical Center, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Building D15, 48149, Muenster, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To quantify the extent and depth of distortion of the foveal capillary architecture due to traction of an idiopathic epiretinal membrane (ERM) using optical coherence tomography angiography (OCT-A). METHODS: Multimodal imaging including OCT-A (Angiovue, Optovue) was performed in 42 eyes with idiopathic ERM (72.4 years ±6.8). Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), OCT-A vessel density of the foveal (VDfo) and parafoveal (VDp) region were assessed. Based on 6 × 6-mm2 OCT-A images, a macular vessel density ratio (MVR = VDfo/VDp) was calculated for the superficial (s), deep (d) and full-thickness (f) slabs to assess a depth-resolved, non-invasive evaluation of foveal distortion. The acquired data were subdivided in a patient group with mild and significant BCVA reduction due to ERM. Data was compared to age-matched healthy controls. RESULTS: In all three slabs, MVR was significantly smaller in the control group in comparison with the ERM group: MVRs: 0.63 ± 0.1 vs 0.83 ± 0.1 (p > 0.001); MVRd: 0.60 ± 0.1 vs 0.73 ± 0.1 (p < 0.001); MVRf: 0.68 ± 0.1 vs 0.82 ± 0.1 (p < 0.001). Group 1 (BCVA <0.4 LogMar) showed a significantly higher MVR in comparison with the control group in the superficial plexus only: MVRs: 0.64 ± 0.1 vs 0.78 ± 0.1 (p < 0.001); MVRd: 0.60 ± 0.1 vs 0.65 ± 0.2 (p = 0.3); MVRf: 0.68 ± 0.1 vs 0.77 ± 0.1 (p = 0.01). However, group 2 (BCVA > = 0.4 LogMar) showed a significantly higher MVR in all three slabs: MVRs: 0.64 ± 0.1 vs 0.86 ± 0.1 (p < 0.001); MVRd: 0.60 ± 0.1 vs 0.77 ± 0.2 (p < 0.001); MVRf: 0.68 ± 0.1 vs 0.85 ± 0.1 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Assessing MVR using OCT-A may serve as a tool to quantify the extent and depth of distortion of the foveal capillary architecture due to traction of ERM. BCVA reduction appears to be associated with extent and depth of distortion.
PURPOSE: To quantify the extent and depth of distortion of the foveal capillary architecture due to traction of an idiopathic epiretinal membrane (ERM) using optical coherence tomography angiography (OCT-A). METHODS: Multimodal imaging including OCT-A (Angiovue, Optovue) was performed in 42 eyes with idiopathic ERM (72.4 years ±6.8). Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), OCT-A vessel density of the foveal (VDfo) and parafoveal (VDp) region were assessed. Based on 6 × 6-mm2 OCT-A images, a macular vessel density ratio (MVR = VDfo/VDp) was calculated for the superficial (s), deep (d) and full-thickness (f) slabs to assess a depth-resolved, non-invasive evaluation of foveal distortion. The acquired data were subdivided in a patient group with mild and significant BCVA reduction due to ERM. Data was compared to age-matched healthy controls. RESULTS: In all three slabs, MVR was significantly smaller in the control group in comparison with the ERM group: MVRs: 0.63 ± 0.1 vs 0.83 ± 0.1 (p > 0.001); MVRd: 0.60 ± 0.1 vs 0.73 ± 0.1 (p < 0.001); MVRf: 0.68 ± 0.1 vs 0.82 ± 0.1 (p < 0.001). Group 1 (BCVA <0.4 LogMar) showed a significantly higher MVR in comparison with the control group in the superficial plexus only: MVRs: 0.64 ± 0.1 vs 0.78 ± 0.1 (p < 0.001); MVRd: 0.60 ± 0.1 vs 0.65 ± 0.2 (p = 0.3); MVRf: 0.68 ± 0.1 vs 0.77 ± 0.1 (p = 0.01). However, group 2 (BCVA > = 0.4 LogMar) showed a significantly higher MVR in all three slabs: MVRs: 0.64 ± 0.1 vs 0.86 ± 0.1 (p < 0.001); MVRd: 0.60 ± 0.1 vs 0.77 ± 0.2 (p < 0.001); MVRf: 0.68 ± 0.1 vs 0.85 ± 0.1 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Assessing MVR using OCT-A may serve as a tool to quantify the extent and depth of distortion of the foveal capillary architecture due to traction of ERM. BCVA reduction appears to be associated with extent and depth of distortion.
Entities:
Keywords:
Epiretinal membrane; OCT angiography; Quantification; Vessel density
Authors: Pedro N Brito; Nuno L Gomes; Marco P Vieira; Pedro A Faria; Augusto V Fernandes; Amândio Rocha-Sousa; Fernando Falcão-Reis Journal: Retina Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: J L Lauermann; A K Woetzel; M Treder; M Alnawaiseh; C R Clemens; N Eter; Florian Alten Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2018-07-07 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Lorenzo Iuliano; Giovanni Fogliato; Roberta Colombo; Riccardo Sacconi; Giuseppe Querques; Francesco Bandello; Marco Codenotti Journal: BMC Ophthalmol Date: 2019-05-10 Impact factor: 2.209
Authors: Felix Rommel; Fynn Siegfried; Jan A M Sochurek; Matthias Rothe; Max P Brinkmann; Maximilian Kurz; Michelle Prasuhn; Salvatore Grisanti; Mahdy Ranjbar Journal: Int J Retina Vitreous Date: 2019-05-21
Authors: Daniela Bacherini; Maria Cristina Savastano; Francesco Dragotto; Lucia Finocchio; Chiara Lenzetti; Alice Bitossi; Ruggero Tartaro; Fabrizio Giansanti; Francesco Barca; Alfonso Savastano; Tomaso Caporossi; Lorenzo Vannozzi; Andrea Sodi; Marino De Luca; Francesco Faraldi; Gianni Virgili; Stanislao Rizzo Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-01-15 Impact factor: 4.241