J L Lauermann1, A K Woetzel1, M Treder1, M Alnawaiseh1, C R Clemens1, N Eter1, Florian 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
PURPOSE: To assess the prevalences of segmentation errors and motion artifacts in optical coherence tomography angiography (OCT-A) in different retinal diseases METHODS: In a retrospective analysis, multimodal retinal imaging including OCT-A was performed in one eye of 57 healthy controls (50.96 ± 22.4 years) and 149 patients (66.42 ± 14.1 years) affected by different chorioretinal diseases: early/intermediate age-related macular degeneration (AMD; n = 26), neovascular AMD (nAMD; n = 22), geographic atrophy due to AMD (GA; n = 6), glaucoma (n = 28), central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC; n = 14), epiretinal membrane (EM; n = 26), retinal vein occlusion (RVO; n = 11), and retinitis pigmentosa (RP; n = 16). Central 3 × 3 mm2 OCT-A imaging was performed with active eye-tracking (AngioVue, Optovue). Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and signal strength index (SSI) were recorded. Images were independently evaluated by two graders using the OCT-A motion artifact score (MAS; scores I-IV) as well as a newly introduced segmentation accuracy score (SAS; score I-IIB). RESULTS: Mean SSI was 63.67 ± 9.2 showing a negative correlation with increasing age (rSp = - 0.42, p < 0.001, n = 206). In the healthy cohort, mean MAS was 1.45 ± 0.8 and segmentation was accurate (SAS I) in all eyes. In eyes with retinal pathologies, mean MAS was 2.1 ± 0.9 (p < 0.001). Lowest MAS was observed in GA (2.67 ± 0.5) and RVO (2.45 ± 1.1). Compared to an accurate segmentation in 100% in healthy subjects, 34.2% (n = 51) of all patients showed highest segmentation quality (p < 0.001). 63.8% showed segmentation errors in more than 5% of all single b-scans in one (SAS IIA, n = 58) or at least two (SAS IIB, n = 40) segmentation boundaries. Highest percentages of inaccurate segmentation (SAS IIA or IIB) were observed in the nAMD group (90.1%). The inner plexiform layer was the segmentation boundary most prone to inaccurate segmentation in all pathologies compared to the inner limiting membrane (ILM) and retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) segmentation layer. Incorrect ILM segmentation was only seen in patients with EM. CONCLUSIONS: Prior to both qualitative and quantitative analysis, OCT-A images must be carefully reviewed as motion artifacts and segmentation errors in current OCT-A technology are frequent particularly in pathologically altered maculae.
PURPOSE: To assess the prevalences of segmentation errors and motion artifacts in optical coherence tomography angiography (OCT-A) in different retinal diseases METHODS: In a retrospective analysis, multimodal retinal imaging including OCT-A was performed in one eye of 57 healthy controls (50.96 ± 22.4 years) and 149 patients (66.42 ± 14.1 years) affected by different chorioretinal diseases: early/intermediate age-related macular degeneration (AMD; n = 26), neovascular AMD (nAMD; n = 22), geographic atrophy due to AMD (GA; n = 6), glaucoma (n = 28), central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC; n = 14), epiretinal membrane (EM; n = 26), retinal vein occlusion (RVO; n = 11), and retinitis pigmentosa (RP; n = 16). Central 3 × 3 mm2 OCT-A imaging was performed with active eye-tracking (AngioVue, Optovue). Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and signal strength index (SSI) were recorded. Images were independently evaluated by two graders using the OCT-A motion artifact score (MAS; scores I-IV) as well as a newly introduced segmentation accuracy score (SAS; score I-IIB). RESULTS: Mean SSI was 63.67 ± 9.2 showing a negative correlation with increasing age (rSp = - 0.42, p < 0.001, n = 206). In the healthy cohort, mean MAS was 1.45 ± 0.8 and segmentation was accurate (SAS I) in all eyes. In eyes with retinal pathologies, mean MAS was 2.1 ± 0.9 (p < 0.001). Lowest MAS was observed in GA (2.67 ± 0.5) and RVO (2.45 ± 1.1). Compared to an accurate segmentation in 100% in healthy subjects, 34.2% (n = 51) of all patients showed highest segmentation quality (p < 0.001). 63.8% showed segmentation errors in more than 5% of all single b-scans in one (SAS IIA, n = 58) or at least two (SAS IIB, n = 40) segmentation boundaries. Highest percentages of inaccurate segmentation (SAS IIA or IIB) were observed in the nAMD group (90.1%). The inner plexiform layer was the segmentation boundary most prone to inaccurate segmentation in all pathologies compared to the inner limiting membrane (ILM) and retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) segmentation layer. Incorrect ILM segmentation was only seen in patients with EM. CONCLUSIONS: Prior to both qualitative and quantitative analysis, OCT-A images must be carefully reviewed as motion artifacts and segmentation errors in current OCT-A technology are frequent particularly in pathologically altered maculae.
Authors: Ricardo N Louzada; Talisa E de Carlo; Mehreen Adhi; Eduardo A Novais; Mary K Durbin; Emily Cole; Mark Lane; Omid Moghimi; Malvika Arya; Marco Bonini Filho; Andre J Witkin; Caroline R Baumal; Marcos Ávila; Jay S Duker; Nadia K Waheed Journal: Can J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-03-15 Impact factor: 1.882
Authors: Luis de Sisternes; Gowtham Jonna; Jason Moss; Michael F Marmor; Theodore Leng; Daniel L Rubin Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2017-02-28 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: James Rogala; Barbara Zangerl; Nagi Assaad; Erica L Fletcher; Michael Kalloniatis; Lisa Nivison-Smith Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-02-10 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Francis Char Decroos; Sandra S Stinnett; Cynthia S Heydary; Russell E Burns; Glenn J Jaffe Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2013-12-23 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Hae Jin Kim; Sang-Yoon Lee; Ki Ho Park; Dong Myung Kim; Jin Wook Jeoung Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2016-09-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Stefan B Ploner; Martin F Kraus; Eric M Moult; Lennart Husvogt; Julia Schottenhamml; A Yasin Alibhai; Nadia K Waheed; Jay S Duker; James G Fujimoto; Andreas K Maier Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2020-12-08 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Ian C Holmen; Sri Meghana Konda; Jeong W Pak; Kyle W McDaniel; Barbara Blodi; Kimberly E Stepien; Amitha Domalpally Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 7.389
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: Yiqian Wang; Alexandra Warter; Melina Cavichini-Cordeiro; William R Freeman; Dirk-Uwe G Bartsch; Truong Q Nguyen; Cheolhong An Journal: Proc Int Conf Image Proc Date: 2021-08-23