J L Lauermann1, M Treder1, P Heiduschka1, C R Clemens1, N Eter1, F Alten2. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Muenster Medical Center, Domagkstrasse 15, 48149, Muenster, Germany. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Muenster Medical Center, Domagkstrasse 15, 48149, Muenster, Germany. florian.alten@ukmuenster.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of eye-tracking (ET) technology on optical coherence tomography angiography (OCT-A) image quality and manifestation of motion artifacts in patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD). METHODS: In a prospective trial, multimodal retinal imaging including OCT-A was performed in 30 patients (78.97 ± 9.7 years) affected by different stages of AMD. Central 3 × 3 mm2 OCT-A imaging was performed four times consecutively in each patient, twice with active, and twice with inactive ET. Parameters for image evaluation were signal strength index (SSI), variability of foveal vessel density (VD), acquisition time, presence of motion artifacts caused by eye movement (blink lines, displacement) and by software correction of eye movement (quilting, stretch artifacts, vessel doubling). Images were evaluated by two independent readers with subsequent senior reader arbitration for presence of artifacts, and an OCT-A motion artifact score (MAS) was calculated. RESULTS: Eight patients had early and eight patients had intermediate stages of AMD. Four patients had an atrophic late stage and ten patients an exudative stage of the disease. SSI was 53.55 with inactive and 57.18 with active ET (p = 0.0005). Coefficients of variability of VD between the first and second measurement were 8.9% with inactive and 5.7% with active ET. Mean image acquisition time was 15.97 s (active ET: 22.88 s, p < 0.001). Presence of motion artifacts was significantly higher with inactive ET (mean MAS 3.27 vs. 1.93; p < 0.0001). MAS correlated with AMD disease stage [p = 0.0031 (inactive ET) and p < 0.0001 (active ET)] and with SSI (p = 0.0072 and p = 0.0006). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AMD, active ET technology offers an improved image quality in OCT-A imaging regarding presence of motion artifacts at the expense of higher acquisition time.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of eye-tracking (ET) technology on optical coherence tomography angiography (OCT-A) image quality and manifestation of motion artifacts in patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD). METHODS: In a prospective trial, multimodal retinal imaging including OCT-A was performed in 30 patients (78.97 ± 9.7 years) affected by different stages of AMD. Central 3 × 3 mm2 OCT-A imaging was performed four times consecutively in each patient, twice with active, and twice with inactive ET. Parameters for image evaluation were signal strength index (SSI), variability of foveal vessel density (VD), acquisition time, presence of motion artifacts caused by eye movement (blink lines, displacement) and by software correction of eye movement (quilting, stretch artifacts, vessel doubling). Images were evaluated by two independent readers with subsequent senior reader arbitration for presence of artifacts, and an OCT-A motion artifact score (MAS) was calculated. RESULTS: Eight patients had early and eight patients had intermediate stages of AMD. Four patients had an atrophic late stage and ten patients an exudative stage of the disease. SSI was 53.55 with inactive and 57.18 with active ET (p = 0.0005). Coefficients of variability of VD between the first and second measurement were 8.9% with inactive and 5.7% with active ET. Mean image acquisition time was 15.97 s (active ET: 22.88 s, p < 0.001). Presence of motion artifacts was significantly higher with inactive ET (mean MAS 3.27 vs. 1.93; p < 0.0001). MAS correlated with AMD disease stage [p = 0.0031 (inactive ET) and p < 0.0001 (active ET)] and with SSI (p = 0.0072 and p = 0.0006). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AMD, active ET technology offers an improved image quality in OCT-A imaging regarding presence of motion artifacts at the expense of higher acquisition time.
Authors: Acner Camino; Miao Zhang; Simon S Gao; Thomas S Hwang; Utkarsh Sharma; David J Wilson; David Huang; Yali Jia Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2016-09-06 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Emil A T Say; Sandor Ferenczy; George N Magrath; Wasim A Samara; Chloe T L Khoo; Carol L Shields Journal: Retina Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Acner Camino; Miao Zhang; Changlei Dongye; Alex D Pechauer; Thomas S Hwang; Steven T Bailey; Brandon Lujan; David J Wilson; David Huang; Yali Jia Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2016-08
Authors: Joseph Ho; Alan C Sull; Laurel N Vuong; Yueli Chen; Jonathan Liu; James G Fujimoto; Joel S Schuman; Jay S Duker Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2009-07-09 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Yogesan Kanagasingam; Alauddin Bhuiyan; Michael D Abràmoff; R Theodore Smith; Leonard Goldschmidt; Tien Y Wong Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2013-11-07 Impact factor: 21.198
Authors: Qisheng You; William R Freeman; Robert N Weinreb; Linda Zangwill; Patricia I C Manalastas; Luke J Saunders; Eric Nudleman Journal: Retina Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Yali Jia; Ou Tan; Jason Tokayer; Benjamin Potsaid; Yimin Wang; Jonathan J Liu; Martin F Kraus; Hrebesh Subhash; James G Fujimoto; Joachim Hornegger; David Huang Journal: Opt Express Date: 2012-02-13 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Jost L Lauermann; Y Xu; P Heiduschka; M Treder; F Alten; N Eter; M Alnawaiseh Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2019-10-19 Impact factor: 3.117
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: Peer Lauermann; Christian van Oterendorp; Marcus W Storch; Mohammed H Khattab; Nicolas Feltgen; Hans Hoerauf; Sebastian Bemme Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2019-08-19 Impact factor: 3.283