| Literature DB >> 29298687 |
Anuriti Aojula1,2, Susan P Mollan3,4, John Horsburgh5, Andreas Yiangou1,2,6, Kiera A Markey1,2,6, James L Mitchell1,2,6, William J Scotton1,2,6, Pearse A Keane7, Alexandra J Sinclair1,2,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) imaging is being increasingly used in clinical practice for the monitoring of papilloedema. The aim is to characterise the extent and location of the Retinal Nerve Fibre Layer (RNFL) Thickness automated segmentation error (SegE) by manual refinement, in a cohort of Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension (IIH) patients with papilloedema and compare this to controls.Entities:
Keywords: Artefact; Idiopathic intracranial hypertension; Imaging; Monitoring; Optical coherence tomography; Papilloedema; Pseudotumour Cerebri; Retinal nerve fibre layer
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29298687 PMCID: PMC6389234 DOI: 10.1186/s12886-017-0652-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Ophthalmol ISSN: 1471-2415 Impact factor: 2.209
Fig. 1This is showing the consort pathway for inclusion and exclusion of subjects in this study
Qualitative assessment of the distribution of RNFL thickness segmentation error comparing the IIH and control cohorts using median values and ranges
| Location | Overall IIH % error ( | Mild IIH % error ( | Moderate-severe IIH % error ( | Control % error ( | p overall | p moderate-severe |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Using ImageJ | ||||||
| Total area of RNFL | 5 (0–58) | 2 (0–16) | 10 (0–58) | 1 (0–6) | 0.009a | <0.001a |
| Using spectalis automated software | ||||||
| Average | ||||||
| Overall | 4 (0–58) | 2 (0–16) | 10 (0–58) | 2 (0–6) | 0.031a | 0.002a |
| Superior | 8 (0–375) | 6 (0–115) | 11 (0–375) | 3 (0–10) | 0.007a | 0.001a |
| Nasal | 2 (0–81) | 2 (0–30) | 1 (0–81) | 1 (0–14) | NS | NS |
| Inferior | 4 (0–79) | 3 (0–12) | 6 (0–79) | 2 (0–11) | 0.031a | 0.008a |
| Maximum | ||||||
| Highest Single Point | 5 (0–62) | 5 (0–43) | 7 (0–62) | 4 (0–14) | NS | NS |
| Superior | 7 (0–60) | 5 (0–42) | 12 (0–60) | 3 (0–26) | 0.044a | 0.017a |
| Nasal | 6 (0–70) | 5 (0–51) | 8 (0–70) | 7 (0–133) | NS | NS |
| Inferior | 5 (0–96) | 3 (0–114) | 7 (0–96) | 3 (0–17) | NS | 0.049a |
| Temporal | 3 (0–43) | 3 (0–21) | 3 (0–43) | 1 (0–28) | NS | NS |
NB values are compared with the control group. There were no significant differences in mild disc swelling for any of the above parameters. NS not significant; aindicates statistical significance
Fig. 2Demonstrates the typical infra-red (IR) images pre and post refinement of the automated segmentation. 1a-1c is a case of mild disc swelling: 1a, IR image of optic nerve head; 1b, Cross section of the peripapillary RNFL scan as autosegmented; 1c, Cross section of the peripapillary RNFL scan following refinement of the segmentation manually. 1d-1f is a case of moderate to severe disc swelling: 1d, IR image of optic nerve head; 1e, Cross section of the peripapillary RNFL scan as autosegmented; 1f, Cross section of the peripapillary RNFL scan following refinement of the segmentation manually
Fig. 3This figure presents the IR image of the optic nerve head and the cross-sectional peripapillary circle scan for three subjects (ab, cd, ef). The figure demonstrates that in moderate to severe optic nerve head swelling the RNFL boundary as delineated by autosegmentation (blue line) is variable and not accurate. The average RNFL thickness values in these cases will be very inaccurate in these patients. In subject CD the height of the elevation of the optic nerve head is truncated by the image width and hence any values obtained from this scan are inaccurate. All the cases presented in these images were not manually segmented and were excluded from the study
Qualitative assessment of the distribution of RNFL thickness segmentation error
| Error location | IIH ( | Control ( |
|---|---|---|
| No error seen | 1 | 3 |
| No predominant distribution | 9 | 8 |
| Superior | 23 | 2 |
| Nasal | 3 | 0 |
| Inferior | 10 | 1 |
| Temporal | 0 | 0 |
Fig. 4Practical Algorithm for inclusion of SD-OCT RNFL thickness values in the clinical setting