BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To assess variability in vessel density (VD) measurements across three optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) devices to identify a methodology that offers the least amount of variation in VD, and to assess the effect of averaging of multiple scans on VD variability. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifteen eyes of eight healthy individuals were imaged consecutively on three OCTA devices. Segmentations at the superficial, deep, and full retinal layers were generated. Repeat scans for each retinal layer were registered and averaged to generate one OCTA image. Two different automated thresholding techniques were used to calculate vessel area density (VAD) from binarized images and vessel skeleton density (VSD) from skeletonized images. Vessel length, a linear measure of the combined lengths of vessels, was calculated. Foveal avascular zone (FAZ) area was measured. RESULTS: All three OCTA devices were significantly different (P < .0001). This finding remained after averaging images (P < .0001). VSD was more repeatable within a device but less reproducible across devices. Conversely, VAD demonstrated less repeatability but greater reproducibility. Differences in VSD between devices were systematic and attributable to differences in resolution. Vessel length, unaffected by resolution, demonstrated no significant differences between the devices (P > .107). There was no significant difference in FAZ area across devices (P = .51). After averaging images, VD was significantly different from the single images for each device and plexus (P < .05) but remained within 1% of the value of a single scan. CONCLUSIONS: OCTA devices show variability in VD for healthy individuals. With greater repeatability, VSD appeared useful for following a patient on one device. VAD and vessel length seemed ideal for comparing vessel parameters between OCTA devices. After averaging multiple scans, VSD remained within 1% of a single scan, for which clinical significance remains to be determined. Caution is advised when comparing quantitative analyses across OCTA devices. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2018;49:S5-S17.]. Copyright 2018, SLACK Incorporated.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To assess variability in vessel density (VD) measurements across three optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) devices to identify a methodology that offers the least amount of variation in VD, and to assess the effect of averaging of multiple scans on VD variability. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifteen eyes of eight healthy individuals were imaged consecutively on three OCTA devices. Segmentations at the superficial, deep, and full retinal layers were generated. Repeat scans for each retinal layer were registered and averaged to generate one OCTA image. Two different automated thresholding techniques were used to calculate vessel area density (VAD) from binarized images and vessel skeleton density (VSD) from skeletonized images. Vessel length, a linear measure of the combined lengths of vessels, was calculated. Foveal avascular zone (FAZ) area was measured. RESULTS: All three OCTA devices were significantly different (P < .0001). This finding remained after averaging images (P < .0001). VSD was more repeatable within a device but less reproducible across devices. Conversely, VAD demonstrated less repeatability but greater reproducibility. Differences in VSD between devices were systematic and attributable to differences in resolution. Vessel length, unaffected by resolution, demonstrated no significant differences between the devices (P > .107). There was no significant difference in FAZ area across devices (P = .51). After averaging images, VD was significantly different from the single images for each device and plexus (P < .05) but remained within 1% of the value of a single scan. CONCLUSIONS: OCTA devices show variability in VD for healthy individuals. With greater repeatability, VSD appeared useful for following a patient on one device. VAD and vessel length seemed ideal for comparing vessel parameters between OCTA devices. After averaging multiple scans, VSD remained within 1% of a single scan, for which clinical significance remains to be determined. Caution is advised when comparing quantitative analyses across OCTA devices. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2018;49:S5-S17.]. Copyright 2018, SLACK Incorporated.
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: Jesse J Jung; Daryle Jason G Yu; Anne Zeng; Michael H Chen; Yue Shi; Marco Nassisi; Kenneth M Marion; Srinivas R Sadda; Quan V Hoang Journal: Ophthalmol Retina Date: 2020-05-07
Authors: Malvika Arya; Ramy Rashad; Osama Sorour; Eric M Moult; James G Fujimoto; Nadia K Waheed Journal: Expert Rev Med Devices Date: 2018-11-22 Impact factor: 3.166
Authors: Frank Brodie; Michael Repka; Stephen Allan Burns; S Grace Prakalapakorn; Christie Morse; Joel S Schuman; Michael R Duenas; Natalie Afshari; John S Pollack; Jennifer E Thorne; Albert Vitale; H Nida Sen; David Myung; Mark S Blumenkranz; Elmer Tu; Daniel X Hammer; Michelle Tarver; Bradley Cunningham; Larry Kagemann; SriniVas Sadda; David Sarraf; Glenn J Jaffe; Malvina Eydelman Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Malvika Arya; Marco Bonini Filho; Carl B Rebhun; Eric M Moult; Byungkung Lee; Yasin Alibhai; Andre J Witkin; Caroline R Baumal; Jay S Duker; James G Fujimoto; Nadia K Waheed Journal: Ophthalmol Retina Date: 2020-06-22
Authors: Rachel E Linderman; Michalis Georgiou; Erica N Woertz; Jenna A Cava; Katie M Litts; Sergey Tarima; Ranjan Rajendram; Jan M Provis; Michel Michaelides; Joseph Carroll Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2020-08-03 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Phillip X Braun; Nihaal Mehta; Isaac Gendelman; A Yasin Alibhai; Caroline R Baumal; Jay S Duker; Nadia K Waheed Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 3.283