Sami W Kabbara 1 , Linda M Zangwill 1 , Rusdeep Mundae 1 , Naama Hammel 1 , Christopher Bowd 1 , Felipe A Medeiros 1 , Robert N Weinreb 1 , Akram Belghith 1 Show Affiliations »
Abstract
AIM: To compare the cube and radial scan patterns of the spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) for quantifying the Bruch's membrane opening minimum rim width (BMO-MRW). METHODS: Sixty healthy eyes and 189 glaucomatous eyes were included. The optic nerve head cube and radial pattern scans were acquired using Spectralis SD-OCT. BMO-MRWs were automatically delineated using the San Diego Automated Layer Segmentation Algorithm. The BMO-MRW diagnostic accuracy for glaucoma detection and rates of change derived from the two scan patterns were compared. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between the baseline global BMO-MRW measurements of cube and radial scans for healthy (301.9±57.8 µm and 334.7±61.8 µm, respectively, p<0.003) and glaucoma eyes (181.2±63.0 µm and 210.2±67.2 µm, respectively, p<0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for differentiating between healthy and glaucoma eyes was 0.90 for both the radial scan-based and cube scan-based BMO-MRW. No significant difference in the rate of BMO-MRW change (mean follow-up years) by scan pattern was found among both healthy (cube: -1.47 µm/year, radial: -1.53 µm/year; p=0.48) (1.6 years) and glaucoma eyes (cube: -2.37 µm/year, radial: -2.28 µm/year; p=0.45) (2.6 years). CONCLUSION: Although the cube scan-based BMO-MRW was significantly smaller than the radial scan-based BMO-MRW, we found no significant difference between the two scan patterns for detecting glaucoma, identifying BMO location and measuring the rate of BMO-MRW change. These results suggest that although BMO-MRW estimates are not interchangeable, both scan patterns can be used for monitoring BMO-MRW changes over time. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.
AIM: To compare the cube and radial scan patterns of the spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT ) for quantifying the Bruch's membrane opening minimum rim width (BMO-MRW). METHODS: Sixty healthy eyes and 189 glaucomatous eyes were included. The optic nerve head cube and radial pattern scans were acquired using Spectralis SD-OCT . BMO-MRWs were automatically delineated using the San Diego Automated Layer Segmentation Algorithm. The BMO-MRW diagnostic accuracy for glaucoma detection and rates of change derived from the two scan patterns were compared. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between the baseline global BMO-MRW measurements of cube and radial scans for healthy (301.9±57.8 µm and 334.7±61.8 µm, respectively, p<0.003) and glaucoma eyes (181.2±63.0 µm and 210.2±67.2 µm, respectively, p<0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for differentiating between healthy and glaucoma eyes was 0.90 for both the radial scan-based and cube scan-based BMO-MRW. No significant difference in the rate of BMO-MRW change (mean follow-up years) by scan pattern was found among both healthy (cube: -1.47 µm/year, radial: -1.53 µm/year; p=0.48) (1.6 years) and glaucoma eyes (cube: -2.37 µm/year, radial: -2.28 µm/year; p=0.45) (2.6 years). CONCLUSION: Although the cube scan-based BMO-MRW was significantly smaller than the radial scan-based BMO-MRW, we found no significant difference between the two scan patterns for detecting glaucoma , identifying BMO location and measuring the rate of BMO-MRW change. These results suggest that although BMO-MRW estimates are not interchangeable, both scan patterns can be used for monitoring BMO-MRW changes over time. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.
Entities: Chemical
Disease
Keywords:
BMO; BMO-MRW; Glaucoma; OCT
Mesh： See more »
Year: 2017
PMID： 28774935 DOI： 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-310111
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Ophthalmol ISSN： 0007-1161 Impact factor: 4.638